ORDER : The petitioner-defendant No.1 in O.S.No.24/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gokak is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.6. 2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.24/2019 for partition. The petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for a direction to the P.D.O. of Koujalagi Gram Panchayat to produce property extracts of property No.571 and 569/3 of Koujalagi Gram Panchayat. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the plaintiff has not brought all the properties of the family for partition which is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. Hence, defendant No.1 had made an application to the P.D.O., Koujalagi Gram Panchayat for providing property extracts of property bearing No.571 and 569/3, which was not answered. Hence, the defendant No.1 made I.A.No.6, which was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected I.A.No.6. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 would submit that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting I.A.N.6 filed under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC. I.A.No.6 was filed seeking for direction to the P.D.O., Koujalagi Gram Panchayat to produce property extract of properties bearing No.571 and 569/3. The learned counsel would submit that the defendant No.1 had made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Koujalagi praying to furnish property extract of property bearing No.571 and 569/3, but the said request is not considered by the Gram Panchayat. As such, the defendant No.1 was constrained to file the present application. The said document i.e. property extract is very much necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. Hence, she pays that the writ petition be allowed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order, I am of the view that the impugned order would not suffer from any error. The document i.e. property extract is a public document and the defendant No.1 could very much can get the certified copy of the same. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order, I am of the view that the impugned order would not suffer from any error. The document i.e. property extract is a public document and the defendant No.1 could very much can get the certified copy of the same. It is clear from Annexure-D that the plaintiff made an application to the Gram Panchayat on 27.12.2019 and within ten days he has made the present application on 07.01.2020 without giving any time to the PDO Gram Panchayat. The finding of the trial Court that the document sought for by the defendant No.1 is a public document and the same could be obtained to place it before the Court is proper and correct. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.