Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-That by the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2005 whereby his application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151, CPC and under Order 11 Rule 14, CPC has been dismissed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Tonk. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed civil suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the respondents be restrained from enchasing the security and performance guarantee on the alleged ground of non-completion of work. 3. In the said civil suit the petitioner has filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151, CPC and under Order 11 Rule 14, CPC for summoning the original copy of the contract, measurement books, guard file and the measurement books of the work completed by the other contractor. 4. The respondents have admitted photo copy of the contract by the petitioner. The respondents have further submitted before the trial Court that there is no dispute with regard to the measurement of the work as the plaintiff-petitioner himself has admitted that the alleged work could not be completed for the reason beyond control. 5. In view of the aforesaid admission/submission the trial Court has also considered the other fact that in the civil suit only the responsibility of the party with regard to completion of the work is to be determined for which the measurement book, guard file and measurement book of the other contract need not be called for. Otherwise also the measurement book of the other contractor is not relevant and necessary to be called for, for the purpose of deciding the other issue. 6. After hearing both the parties and consideration of the aforesaid facts, the trial Court has rejected the application. 7. The submission of Mr. Garg is that the original copy of the contract, guard file and measurement book regarding the work of the petitioner and other contractor are essential to decide the present dispute. Mr. Garg has placed reliance on a ex parte Judgment dated 12.09.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6978/2005 Harish Gaurav vs. ADJ (Fast Track) No. 1, Tonk & Ors. 8. I have considered the contents of the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith and further perused the impugned order as well as the submissions made by Mr. Garg. 9. Garg has placed reliance on a ex parte Judgment dated 12.09.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6978/2005 Harish Gaurav vs. ADJ (Fast Track) No. 1, Tonk & Ors. 8. I have considered the contents of the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith and further perused the impugned order as well as the submissions made by Mr. Garg. 9. In the Judgment cited above there was neither any admission nor submission of the parties of not disputing the measurement, therefore, the same is not applicable. I am also of the view that the contract has been admitted by the respondents and further with regard to the measurement, there is no dispute and only the responsibility of the parties is to be determined. Therefore, the said documents are not necessary for the purpose of the decision of the present case. 10. The trial Court has not committed any kind of error in rejecting the application and while doing so it has acted within its parameters. No interference under Article 227 is called for. The writ petition is dismissed.