JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions have been filed against the common order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated October 5, 1993 by which he has dismissed the applications for calling the records relating to the income tax assessments of the defendant-non-petitioner Parasmal from the Income Tax Office, Jodhpur. 2. The facts of the cases giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus. Four different plaintiff-petitioners have filed suits against the same defendant Parasmal for the recovery of certain amounts deposited by them with him. In all the four suits, the defendant Parasmal denied the deposits. Applications were moved in all four suits for summoning the relevant records from the Income-tax Office, Jodhpur relating to the assessment of the defendant Paras Mal. The defendant-non-petitioner Parasmal did not file his reply in any suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, applications moved in three suits were dismissed on the grounds that records cannot be summoned under Order 13 Rule 6, C.P.C. from an office, certified copies of the desired documents and list of witnesses have not been filed by the plaintiff in any suit and as such no official of the Income-tax Office can be summoned to produce the desired records. 3. During the arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners stated that the application moved in the fourth suit has not been decided as the suit has been transferred to Addl. Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the applications on the ground that a document can be summoned under Order 13 Rule 10, C.P.C. from a Court and not from an office. He further contended that it is clearly provided in Rule 6 of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a document can well be summoned from any person. He also contended that the Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur did not issue certified copies of the balance-sheet and khata of the defendant Parasmal, as such their certified copies could not be filed and a photostat copy of the khata was filed which was given by the defendant Parasmal himself to the plaintiffs. 5. Mr. J.R. Patel put his appearance for and on behalf of the non-petitioner on November 19, 1993. Today, he has not appeared. 6. 5. Mr. J.R. Patel put his appearance for and on behalf of the non-petitioner on November 19, 1993. Today, he has not appeared. 6. It is stated in the impugned order that the defendant-non-petitioner Parasmal did not file his reply to the plaintiffs' application moved for the production of the said records. As such the affidavit of Shri A.R. Mehta Advocate filed in support of the applications had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. It is clearly stated in it that issues in three suits were framed in the month of April, 1993, he fell ill from March 27, 1993, he was taken to the Bombay Hospital, Bombay for his treatment, he could recover in July, 1993 and he started going to Courts in August, 1993. 7. When the defendant did not choose to file reply to the application in any suit, the learned Additional District judge No. 3, Jodhpur should have allowed the application and summoned the desired record from the Income-tax Officer, Jodhpur. He has committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while rejecting the applications. It would be better that the plaintiffs may move applications under Order 11 Rule 12, C.P.C. for the discovery of the required documents in the suits or may serve interrogations under Order 11 Rule 1, C.P.C. upon the defendant with the prior permission of the trial Court. If the defendant Parasmal denies the filing of copies of the balance-sheet under his signature showing the plaintiffs' deposits plaintiffs' khatas, the relevant records of the Income tax Officer, Jodhpur may be called for. 8. In suit No. 435/89, issues were framed on 28th July, 1993 and duly filled up summons and process fee were filed on August 5, 1993. As such it could not be said that the names of the witnesses were not disclosed in this suit. 9. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed with the aforesaid observations. The common order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated October 5,1993 is set aside.Appeal dismissed. *******