ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants is filed challenging the order dated 30.6.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court. By the aforesaid order in civil suit No.41A/2013 plaintiff/respondent No.1’s application under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC has been allowed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are in narrow compass. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on various grounds including the ground that suit premise was rented out to a firm, namely; Messers Sadi Darwar. However, with the passage of time, the aforesaid firm has extinguished and no such firm exists as on date, therefore, tenant firm is no more in occupation over the suit premise. Petitioners/defendants are not tenant and the tenancy cannot said to be further continued. During the course of the trial, the petitioners/defendants in order to refute the aforesaid allegation, had filed an application under section 151 CPC before the trial Court seeking direction for summoning of the record from the Commercial Tax Department, as regards registration of firm and sales tax return of the financial year 2010-11 to demonstrate that the petitioners’/defendants’ firms was very much in existence. Aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court on the premise that the petitioners/defendants are always at liberty to procure certified copy of such documents and file the same before the Court in support of their submission. Petitioners/defendants, accordingly, after obtaining certified copy of the relevant documents submitted the same before the trial Court on 20.3.2015. It appears that no sooner the aforesaid documents were filed before the trial Court, the respondent/landlord filed the instant application under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC seeking direction from the trial Court for summoning of the original record from the Commercial Tax Department with the allegation that this firm has already been closed down. The trial Court while allowing the aforesaid application has further ordered that the petitioners/defendants should pay process fee for summoning the record from the Commercial Tax Department also to prove documents, they have filed. 3. Criticizing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the trial Court by passing the impugned order, in fact and in effect, has played fast and loose with its authority while regulating procedural law. This cannot be permitted. 3. Criticizing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the trial Court by passing the impugned order, in fact and in effect, has played fast and loose with its authority while regulating procedural law. This cannot be permitted. It is submitted that if the trial Court at the earlier point of time had rejected the petitioners/defendants’ application under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC for summoning the record and that led to filing of the certified copy of the documents before the trial Court, at a later stage, at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff similar application could not have been allowed. That apart, there was absolutely, no justification of calling upon the petitioners/defendants to pay process fee within three working days for summoning the record and consequently directing the petitioners/defendants to prove the documents so filed by them. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional error in the matter of exercising of discretionary power under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that as he has procured the certificate from the office of Commercial Tax Department that such firm, namely; Messers. Sadi Darwar is no more in existence, therefore, there is an emerging situation for verification of the certified copy of the documents submitted by the petitioners/defendants. Hence, under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application for summoning the original record from the Commercial Tax Department. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, verification of the certified copy of the documents submitted by the petitioners/defendants to ascertain the status of the firm whether it is in existence or not in excitable. Hence, no illegality cannot be said to have been committed by the trial Court by allowing the application filed under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, true it is that earlier the trial Court had rejected the application moved by the petitioners/defendants under Order 13 rule 10(3) CPC for summoning of record, but considering the fact that to verify the certified copy filed by the defendants in the light of the documents filed by respondent/plaintiff regarding non-existence of the firm, if the trial Court has summoned the original record, no illegality was committed by the trial Court. After all, procedural laws are handmaid laws and required to be applied to subserve course of justice. Therefore, requisitioning of the original record from the concerned department cannot said to be in any way prejudicial to the interest of either party. Hence, no illegality is found in the order impugned to that extent. However, trial Court has acted excessively having called upon the petitioners/defendants to pay process fee for summoning the record, as consequence requiring to prove certified copy of the documents so filed by them. As the respondent/landlord had moved the application for summoning the record, in all fairness, the plaintiff/landlord ought to have been called upon to pay process fee for summoning the record and thereafter, to prove that the aforesaid firm, namely; Messers. Sadi Darwar is not in existence by the relevant record, and after the aforesaid burden is discharged, thereafter, onus shall shift on plaintiff/respondent to disprove the same. 6. Before parting with writ petition, it is considered apposite to observe that the trial Court shall make endeavour for expeditious disposal of the suit, at an early date. 7. With the aforesaid observations the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above, writ petition is disposed of. VKB