JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard Sri K. K. Nirkhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority/1st A.J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 38 of 2002 (Mohammad Moin and others vs. Ahmad and another) in terms of which the recall application dated 11.1.2019 filed by the respondent-landlord has been allowed and the earlier order dated 03.12.2018 has been set aside. 3. The records of the case indicate that against an order dated 8.4.2005 allowing the release application filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3-landlords in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and the appellate order dated 9.8.2005, an earlier writ petition, Writ-A No. 63745 of 2005 (Ahmad vs. Mohd. Moin and others), was filed which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.1.2014 in the following terms :- "The writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 8.4.2005 and 9.8.2005 (Annexures 7 and 8 respectively to this writ petition) are hereby quashed. Matter is remanded to Prescribed Authority only to decide whether the property in question is a Waqf property or not. In case it is found that property in question is a Waqf property, he will have no jurisdiction in the matter, and the application shall stand dismissed but in case otherwise, for all other aspects, the issue having already been decided by Courts below on merits, the same shall stand as it is and the matter shall stand decided accordingly." 4. It transpires that pursuant to the aforementioned order of remand, and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 38 of 2002, an order dated 3.12.2018 was passed summoning certain records from the Waqf Board. It transpires that pursuant to the aforementioned order of remand, and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 38 of 2002, an order dated 3.12.2018 was passed summoning certain records from the Waqf Board. Subsequent thereto upon an application dated 11.1.2019 filed by the respondents-landlord, the Prescribed Authority upon noticing the fact that in terms of the order of remand, it was required to decide only whether the property in questions is a waqf property or not, and there was no direction for summoning of the records, and also taking into consideration that the application for summoning of the records was filed by the petitioners-tenant on 29.9.2018, which was after a substantial delay from the date of the remand order dated 22.1.2014, allowed the recall application after recording that the application had been moved by the petitioners-tenant for summoning the records only with a view to keep the matter pending. The Prescribed Authority has also taken note of the fact that pursuant to the order dated 3.12.2018 directing summoning of the records no steps had been taken by the petitioners-tenant, and accordingly it was held that the purpose of filing the application for summoning of the records was only to delay the proceedings. 5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 03.12.2018 having been passed after hearing the parties and the same not being exparte the restoration application was not maintainable. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the application dated 11.01.2019 was not an application for restoration but it was an application seeking recall of the earlier order dated 3.12.2018. Referring to the application dated 11.1.2019, it has been pointed out that the documents which were being sought to be summoned by the petitioners-tenant were already on record, and in view of the same the order dated 3.12.2018 has rightly been recalled. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions under Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C. to contend that necessary pre-requisites for summoning of the records were not fulfilled, and as such the order dated 3.12.2018 has rightly been recalled by the Prescribed Authority. 7. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions under Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C. to contend that necessary pre-requisites for summoning of the records were not fulfilled, and as such the order dated 3.12.2018 has rightly been recalled by the Prescribed Authority. 7. In terms of the order of remand passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation the Prescribed Authority was only required to decide whether the property in question is a waqf property or not, and in regard to the same as per the stand taken by the respondent-landlords in their recall application a copy of the certificate of registration of the property as a waqf, was already on record, and had been filed along with the list of documents (Paper Nos. 62/4 and 62/5). 8. As per terms of the provisions contained under Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C., the Court may send for papers from its own records or from other Courts, and in terms of sub-rule (1) thereof the Court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 under Order XIII provides that every application calling for the records of any other suit or proceeding from any other Court has to be supported by an affidavit showing how the records were material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the records or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners-tenant that certified copy of the relevant document showing the status of the property as a waqf, could not have been obtained by making an appropriate application before the Waqf Board, therefore the order passed by the Prescribed Authority recalling the earlier order in terms of which the relevant records had been summoned, cannot be faulted with. 10. The scope of Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C. came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Papanna and others Vs. 10. The scope of Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C. came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Papanna and others Vs. H.Dodde Gowda and others, (1987) ILR(Kar) 2898 wherein it was held that there must be serious application of mind by the Court as to the documents and the records which are required to be called for from other Courts and before calling for the records or documents it must examine if such records are absolutely necessary for deciding the case before it. The observations made in the judgment are as follows :- "5. No doubt Order XIII Rule 10(1) of the C.P. Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') read with Rules 76 and 77 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of Practice') give wide powers to the Court to send for records from other Courts but this power, which is discretionary, is required to be exercised in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 76 of the Rules of practice and sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order XIII of the Code. The Court must be satisfied that the applicant cannot without any unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires or that the production of the original is necessary for the purpose of justice. Rule 76 of the Rules of Practice also specifically in mandatory terms provides that "........unless it is made to appear to the Court that the production of the original document is necessary, the party shall be required to obtain and file certified copies thereof and the original shall not be sent for". (Emphasis supplied). Thus it is clear that the Court must be satisfied with reference to a particular document or record that production of the original is necessary for the purpose of justice or the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or such portion thereof as he requires. The Court is not bound to send for the records from the other Court and it should not normally call for the other Court records unless it is satisfied that the other Court record is necessary. It should only call for such records as are necessary and specially mentioned by the applicant. 6. The Court is not bound to send for the records from the other Court and it should not normally call for the other Court records unless it is satisfied that the other Court record is necessary. It should only call for such records as are necessary and specially mentioned by the applicant. 6. Thus there should be serious application of the mind of the Court as to the documents and records which are required to be called for from other Courts. In the instant case, as it is noticed from the sub-peona issued by the Learned Civil Judge, there is a request for sending the entire records of R.F.A. No. 109/1983 on the file of this Court and also the records in O.S. No. 1/1979 on the file of the District Judge, Mandya out of which the appeal in question arises. The records of O.S. No. 1/1979 are bulky consisting of several document. The records of R.F.A. No. 109/1983 consist of only the Memorandum of Appeal and the Judgment and decree of the Court below and the Interlocutory applications filed in the appeal. It is not possible to appreciate how and why the records of R.F.A. No. 109/83 are required. Even if the same are required certified copies can be obtained and produced. Further the request is not in terms of any particular document or records. Before calling for the records or documents in the other Court from the pending proceedings, the Court calling for the records and documents must bear in mind that it hampers the further progress of the proceedings before the other Court. Therefore, it must be careful to find out whether such documents and records are absolutely necessary for deciding the case before it. Then only it should call for those documents and records wherever the originals of the same are necessary, and in cases where the originals are not necessary, the same should not be called for, unless it is not possible for the applicant to obtain and produce the authenticated copies of the same."............ 11. Reference may be had to the judgment in the case of Apollo Machinary Mart Vs. Firoj Shah Mustt. 11. Reference may be had to the judgment in the case of Apollo Machinary Mart Vs. Firoj Shah Mustt. Rausana Begum and others, (1995) 2 GauLR 279 wherein it was held that sub-rule (2) under Rule 10 of Order XIII indicates that every application calling for the records of any other suit or proceeding from any other Court has to be supported by an affidavit showing how the records were material to the suit in which the application was made. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows :- "2. At the hearing of the Civil Revision, Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the aforesaid records of MS No. 20/88 and MS No. 19/92 pending in the Court of the Assistant District judge No. I Kamrup, Guwahati were relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal and hence the Additional District Judge ought to have passed orders calling for the said records and this is a fit case in which this Court ought to interfere with this Civil Revision. In reply, Mr. B.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the provisions of O. 13 R. 10, CPC, required that any application for calling for records from any other Court has to be supported by affidavit showing how the records were material to the suit in which the application was made. Since the application of the petitioner for calling for records did not comply with the said requirement of O. 13 R. 10, CPC, the Additional District Judge had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the said order in a Civil Revision. 4. O. 13 R. 10, CPC, is quoted hereinbelow: "Court may send for papers from its own records or from other Courts.-(1) The Court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, cither from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. (2) Every application made under this rule shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires or that the production of the original is necessary for the purpose of the justice. (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed to enable the Court to use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 13 quoted above indicates that every application for calling for the records of any other suit or proceeding from any other Court has to be supported by an affidavit showing: (1) how the records were material to the suit in which the application was made, (ii) that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the records or such portion thereof as the applicant requires or that the production of original records were necessary for the purpose of justice." 12. The question of summoning of ballot papers under Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C., in an election petition, came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (4) ALJ 169 and upon considering the facts of the case it was held that no material was placed to show that summoning of ballot papers was necessary for the purpose of giving evidence, and that merely because evidence was required to be led the original documents namely the ballot papers could not be summoned nor could such method be adopted for inspection of ballot papers while allowing a witness to give his evidence. It was also held that unless the defeated candidate is able to substantiate by means of evidence that a prima facie case existed for inspection of ballot papers, ballot papers could not be summoned merely on the ground that evidence was required to be given and the production of the documents was necessary for the purpose of evidence. The observations made in the aforesaid judgment are being extracted below :- "14. The observations made in the aforesaid judgment are being extracted below :- "14. The Court below while allowing the application has considered the provision of Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for summoning the ballot papers. In my opinion, the court below has committed a manifest error in allowing the application for summoning the ballot papers under Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. There was no material placed in the application to show that the summoning of the ballot papers was necessary for the purpose of giving evidence. Merely because evidence was required to be led, the original documents, namely, the ballot papers could not be summoned nor could such a method be adopted for the inspection of the ballot papers while allowing a witness to give his evidence. Unless the defeated candidate is able to substantiate by means of evidence that a prima facie case existed for the inspection of the ballot papers, the ballot papers cannot be summoned merely on the ground that evidence was required to be given and that the production of the documents was necessary for the purpose of evidence." 13. In the case of Lakshmi & others Vs. Chinnammal & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 25 while considering the question as to when a prayer for production of document is to be allowed in the context of the provisions under Order XIII Rules 10 and 11 C.P.C., it was held that if bringing on record a document is essential for proving a case, ordinarily the same should not be refused and the procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged, however in the said process the Court would not encourage any fishing enquiry and would also not assist a party in procuring any document which he should have himself filed. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows :- "13. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the court's duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. We are not unmindful of the fact that the court in the said process would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have himself filed." 14. In Mangat Ram Duwa Vs. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. We are not unmindful of the fact that the court in the said process would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have himself filed." 14. In Mangat Ram Duwa Vs. Suraj Mohan Trivedi and another, 2013 (3) ARC 85 it was held that the petitioners' demand for production of certain documents which were public documents could not be sustained as these documents formed part of record of various authorities and could be obtained by the petitioner from the relevant departments as well as certified copies thereof could also be obtained. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows :- "5. Order 11 Rule 12/14 CPC empowers the Court to direct any party to the suit to produce documents in his possession or power relating to the matter in question in suit and may proceed to deal with such documents in the manner appear to be just. The documents sought to be produced are in the nature of a sale deed, map and the extract of the assessment of house tax. All these documents are public documents forming part of the record of the various authorities. They can be obtained by petitioner from the relevant departments, even if, not in his possession and he can very well file the certified copy of the same as secondary evidence." 15. In Ved Vrata Sharma Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jain and others, (2014) 14 SCC 521 an application for summoning the original files of a disposed of suit and a pending suit was dismissed by the trial court, and upon a challenge being raised there against the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved against the said order an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, and after observing that summoning the entire record would affect progress of the pending suit, the order of the trial court rejecting the application for summoning record of the pending case was restored after recording the submission on behalf of the appellant that certified copies from the pending case could be marked. 16. 16. It is thus seen that in a case if bringing on record a document is essential for proving a case, ordinarily the same may not be refused and the procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision is to be encouraged but in the said process the Court would not encourage any fishing enquiry and would not assist a party in procuring any document which the party could have itself filed. Before calling for records or documents from other Courts relating to pending proceedings, the Court may examine if such records are absolutely necessary for deciding the case and also whether it is not possible for the applicant to get certified copies thereof without unreasonable delay or expense. The requirement of the application filed under this rule being accompanied by an affidavit must also be complied with, and the affidavit would have to show the connection between the record sent for and the case under consideration. The Court has a discretion either to grant or to refuse an application under Order XIII Rule 10. The discretion is to be exercised on sound principles and in the interest of justice. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion the legal position which emerges with regard to summoning of records under Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C. may be summarized as follows :- 17.1 Unless it is made to appear to the Court that the production of the original document is necessary, the applicant would be required to obtain and file certified copies thereof and the original may not be sent for. 17.2 The Court must be satisfied with reference to a particular document or record that production of the original is necessary or that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or such portion thereof as he requires. 17.3 The Court is not bound in every case to send for the records from the other Court and it would not normally call for such records unless it is satisfied that the same are necessary. 17.3 The Court is not bound in every case to send for the records from the other Court and it would not normally call for such records unless it is satisfied that the same are necessary. 17.4 Before calling for the records or documents from pending proceedings in the other Courts, the Court calling for the records must bear in mind that it may hamper the progress of the proceedings before the other Court, therefore, due care must be exercised to find out whether such documents and records are absolutely necessary for deciding the case before it, and only then it may call for those documents and records. 17.5 There should be due application of mind by the Court as to the necessity of the documents and records which are required to be called for from other Courts. 17.6 In cases where the originals are not necessary, the same may not be called for, unless it is not possible for the applicant to obtain and produce authenticated copies of the same. 17.7 Every application for calling for the records of any other suit or proceedings from any other Court has to be supported by an affidavit showing: (i) how the records were material to the case in which the application was made, and (ii) that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the records or such portion thereof as the applicant requires or that the production of original records were necessary for the purpose of justice. 17.8 If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the Court's duty being to find out the truth. However, in the said process the Court would not encourage any fishing enquiry and it would also not assist a party in procuring a document which the party should have itself filed. 18. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the aforementioned legal position and has not been able to point out any material error or illegality in the order passed by the court below so as to warrant interference of this Court. 19. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.