JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-plaintiff has laid this writ petition to challenge the impugned order dated 7th of October, 2015 (Annex. 4) passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below has rejected application of the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC in a suit for perpetual injunction. 2. In brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents that first respondent may not raise any construction, contrary to the approved plan by the second respondent, on his plot and further he may not raise any construction at the set-back area. The suit is contested by first respondent and written statement is filed. In the written statement, the respondent has refuted all the averments contained in the plaint. While joining issue with the petitioner on construction, at the set-back area, it is pleaded by the respondent that construction raised at the set-back area has been regularised by the second respondent, UIT Bhilwara. Along with the written statement, a counter-claim is also filed by the respondent seeking relief of injunction against the petitioner. 3. After faming of the issues by the learned Court below when proceedings were going on for recording evidence of petitioner, he submitted an application (Annex.3) for summoning of the approved plan of the respondent and the entire file of UIT, Bhilwara whereby construction permission was accorded to the respondent. Upon considering the application, the learned Court below, by the impugned order declined the prayer of the petitioner observing that after framing of the issues petitioner has availed three opportunities to tender his evidence, but he is not appearing in the witness-box and therefore, the said application is designed to prolong the matter. 4. While making all these observations, the learned Court below not only dismissed the application of the petitioner but also imposed cost of Rs. 100/- and posted the matter for recording his evidence with last opportunity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 6. Well it is true that in the impugned order the learned Court below has misconstrued the prayer of the petitioner incorporated in Annex.3, but then the allegations contained in the plaint are required to be proved by the petitioner with cogent evidence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 6. Well it is true that in the impugned order the learned Court below has misconstrued the prayer of the petitioner incorporated in Annex.3, but then the allegations contained in the plaint are required to be proved by the petitioner with cogent evidence. The petitioner is well within his right to tender requisite evidence for proving unauthorized construction by the respondent or construction raised dehors the approved plan or against the bye-laws of UIT. Moreover, any construction raised on the set-back area contrary to bye-laws is required to be defended by the respondent. The construction raised by the respondent is in adherence of the permission granted by the UIT or not is required to be proved by the respondent and on its failure to prove the same, Court can grant appropriate relief to the petitioner. On the face of it when there is allegation in the plaint that respondent is raising construction contrary to approved plan and on the setback area, if requisite document is not produced by the respondent, the Court below can take cognizance of this fact and can also draw adverse inference against the respondent. 7. In totality, if the requisite document is not brought on record, no prejudice can be caused to the petitioner. There is yet another aspect of the matter that the application (Annex.3) submitted by the petitioner is absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific and, while considering the same, the learned Court below has rightly exercised its discretion declining prayer of the petitioner. 8. Judgment in Sandeep Chittorda & Anr. v. Vijay Lal Tayal [2012 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1155] , on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, is factually distinguishable and cannot render any assistance to the cause of the petitioner. 9. Looking to the nature of lis involved in the suit and the fact that petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail discretionary order of the learned Court below, it is not desirable to interfere with the same.Consequently, the writ petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******