JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application preferred on behalf of the respondent no.1-Bank under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 11.2.14 passed by the District Judge, Hanumangarh, whereby the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff for summoning the record of Criminal Case No.28A/10 from the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilibanga, has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has committed serious error in summoning the record of Criminal Case No.28A/10. It is submitted that it is open for the respondent to obtain the certified copies of the relevant documents from the court concerned and produce before the court below. Learned counsel submitted that if the record of the criminal court is requisitioned, the trial of the criminal case is bound to be held up and thus, the petitioner would suffer undue hardship. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submitted that the suit for recovery preferred by the petitioner is based on the documents, which are part of record of criminal case and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to requisition the record of the criminal case inasmuch as, the petitioner is required to prove the documents placed on record by primary evidence. Learned counsel submitted that certified copies of the loan documents are not admissible in evidence unless permission to lead secondary evidence is granted by the court in terms of provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Learned counsel submitted that original documents are in existence and are subject to process of the court and therefore, production of the secondary evidence is not permissible. Accordingly, it is submitted that no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Indisputably, the suit for recovery preferred by the respondent-Bank is based on the loan documents, which were on being requisitioned were produced by the respondent-Bank before the Investigating Officer investigating the criminal case, which now form part of the charge sheet filed before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Indisputably, the suit for recovery preferred by the respondent-Bank is based on the loan documents, which were on being requisitioned were produced by the respondent-Bank before the Investigating Officer investigating the criminal case, which now form part of the charge sheet filed before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. Obviously, the court below while summoning the documents, has acted well within its jurisdiction inasmuch as, if it is considered necessary for effective and complete adjudication between the parties, the court is not precluded from summoning the relevant record/documents. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the court below summoning the documents exercising its judicial discretion, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the court below shall ensure that on account of the record being requisitioned, the trial of the criminal case is not held up. The respondent-plaintiff shall produce its witnesses for cross-examination before the court below on the date fixed and shall conclude its evidence expeditiously. After the documents being marked exhibit, while keeping the compared copies of the documents on record, the record of the criminal case shall be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.Petition Dismissed. *******