ORDER : Assailing order dated 11.05.2015 in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 whereby, application dated 24.03.2014 has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner-company is a Public Limited Company and the respondent is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act. In pursuance of tender notice dated 12.08.1988 for installation of 100 TPH froth flotation plant, work was awarded to the petitioner, for which the petitioner furnished three bank guarantees in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties and the respondent sought to invoke bank gurantees. Consequently, Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondent from invoking/encashing the bank guarantees. In the said suit an order for temporary injunction was granted however, subsequently the said order was revoked. Thereafter, Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,88,69,894.93/. The defendantrespondent herein appeared in the said suit and filed written statement. When the plaintiff started leading evidence, at this stage application dated 24.03.2014 was filed seeking a direction from the Court to permit the parties to reconstruct file of Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and thereafter, permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. The said application has been dismissed on 11.05.2015, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. Mr. R. N. Sahay, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents on which the plaintiff relies were filed in the Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and therefore an application was made for obtaining certified copies of those documents. Referring to endorsement made by the registry on the application of the petitioner, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since the registry made an endorsement that those documents are not on record, the petitioner filed an application in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 seeking a direction from the Court for reconstruction of the record. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed application dated 24.03.2014 in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 for a direction to the parties to reconstruct the record of Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and after the record is reconstructed, permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. 4. As against the above, Mr. Anoop Kr. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed application dated 24.03.2014 in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 for a direction to the parties to reconstruct the record of Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and after the record is reconstructed, permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. 4. As against the above, Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL submits that application dated 24.03.2014 filed by the petitioner was misconceived in as much as, no direction can be issued by the Court in seisin of Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 to order reconstruction of record of Title Suit No. 10 of 1996. Referring to application made by the petitioner in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996, it is submitted that the petitioner was required to obtain an order in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 rather, to file application dated 24.03.2014. On these grounds, writ petition has been resisted by the respondent. 5. From the documents brought on record, it appears that affidavit-in-opposition to the application dated 24.03.2014 was not filed by the defendant-BCCL in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999. In the present proceeding also an opportunity was granted to the respondent-BCCl to file affidavit however, no affidavit has been filed by the respondent-BCCl. The plaintiff intends to rely on documents filed in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and for obtaining certified copies of those documents it made application however, those documents have not been made available to the petitioner and the Registry has made an endorsement that those documents are not on record. Though, I find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-BCCl that the plaintiff should have pressed the application filed in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996, the impugned order dated 11.05.2015 cannot sustain scrutiny in law for the reason that the Trial Judge has rejected application dated 24.03.2014 on the ground that both the suits are separate and distinct and both were filed for different cause of action. Whether the suits have been filed for different cause of action or not, was not the issue before the Trial Judge. The petitioner is entitled to lead evidence, in accordance with law and for that purpose it is entitled to obtain certified copies of the documents in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996. Whether the suits have been filed for different cause of action or not, was not the issue before the Trial Judge. The petitioner is entitled to lead evidence, in accordance with law and for that purpose it is entitled to obtain certified copies of the documents in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996. Order XIII Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to send for the record of any other suit or proceeding and permit an applicant to obtain duly authenticated copy of the record. Even though, application dated 24.03.2014 was not suitably drafted, the same could not have been rejected for the reason assigned by the Trial Judge. The impugned order dated 11.05.2015 is hereby setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Judge for deciding application dated 24.03.2014, afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.