Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1364 (MP)

Baboolal Kori v. Munnalal Yadav

2013-11-12

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by 19th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in C.S. No. 3-A/2011, whereby his application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC permitting the petitioner to examine the concerning Revenue Inspector and Patwari to prove some factual matrix of the matter, mentioned in the Revenue Record has been dismissed. 2. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order. It is apparent from the impugned order that aforesaid application of petitioner has been dismissed holding that certified copy of the concerning record could have been filed by the petitioner in support of his case but the same were not filed. In the available circumstances such documents being public document could be proved under Section 74 and 76 of Evidence Act by producing the certified copy of the same. In such premises the examination of Revenue Inspector and Patwari are not required in the matter. It is also apparent that the trial court has invoked its vested discretionary jurisdiction with proper approach, the same does not require any interference under the superintending jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, consequently this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. 3. However, in the available circumstances, the petitioner is extended an opportunity to file the certified copy of the concerning revenue record and map so also the demarcation order and report before closing the evidence of the petitioner in the trial Court. It is also made clear that if the certified copy of the revenue record is not made available to the petitioner then he shall be at liberty to file appropriate application to call the original record from the concerning office. 4. Petition is dismissed, with aforesaid observation and directions.