Judgment Sujoy Paul, J.;- 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.6.2011 whereby his application preferred under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. is rejected by the Court below. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is contended by the plaintiff that the present petitioner is mother of plaintiff and plaintiff is owner of disputed house by virtue of some Likhtam and present petitioner is alienating the house. The respondent No. 1 later on withdrew the said suit with liberty to file afresh. The Court below permitted him to do so by order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-5). In the said case, the plaintiff and his witnesses were already examined during the course of trial and certain documents which were in possession of the plaintiff were also filed before withdrawal of the matter. 2. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 instituted another suit. The petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. praying that affidavit which was filed in earlier suit is in possession of respondents/defendants. Therefore, he be directed to produce the same before the Court. The said application is Annexure P-7. The learned Court after obtaining reply from the plaintiff by order dated 14.10.2010 allowed the said application. Despite order of the trial Court, the plaintiff did not produce the said document. At this stage, the petitioner preferred the application under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. (Annexure P-9) with a prayer that the earlier pleadings, evidence and documents are necessary for adjudication of the matter, which may be summoned from the record room. This application is rejected by the Court below. The Court below has assigned reasons that the earlier documents are irrelevant. Petitioner can obtain certified copy of those documents. The Court below relied on Karnataka High Court Judgment on this subject. 3. Shri Pratip Visoriya criticized the said order by submitting that after having allowed the application under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C., the Court below ought to have ensured that the relevant documents are summoned. The documents are very much relevant and have a direct nexus with the subsequent suit. 4. Per contra, Shri J.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the order. 5. The documents are very much relevant and have a direct nexus with the subsequent suit. 4. Per contra, Shri J.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The order sheet dated 14.10.2010 shows that the petitioner's application preferred under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. was allowed by the Court below on 14.10.2010 and the defendant was directed to produce the relevant documents. When those documents were not produced, the application under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. (Annexure P-9) was filed. It is not in dispute between the parties that earlier suit was filed and had proceeded to some extend. In those proceedings, the documents were filed and after withdrawal of that suit, a fresh suit was instituted. Considering the subject matter, it cannot be said that documents prayed for by the petitioner are irrelevant. Thus, the finding given by the Court below that documents are irrelevant is perverse in nature. Since the record sought to be summoned is lying with the same Court, the Court below should not have rejected the application on hyper technical ground that petitioner can obtain certified copies. In these facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned is bad in law and based on a perverse finding and on mechanical approach. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.6.2011 is set aside. Petition is allowed. The application under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. is allowed. The Court below is directed to summon the Case No. 178/08 from the record room and proceed further in accordance with law. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No cost.