JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 questioning the order passed in O.S.No.218/2011, on I.A.No.26 filed under Order under 13 Rule 10 of CPC by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak 2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in O.S.No.218/2011 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have specifically contended in the plaint that the suit lands were tenanted lands. The ancestors of plaintiffs were cultivating the suit lands as tenants. After coming into force of the Land Reforms Act 1974, one Siddavva on behalf of her minor son Maruti filed an application before the land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right. The Tribunal after due enquiry has conferred occupancy right to the family of respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs. It is specific case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs that they are the owners and cultivators of all the petition lands. 4. The respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs have also averred in the plaint that there is no partition by metes and bounds in the suit lands till today. Cause of action to file the suit arose when defendant Nos.1 and 2 taking undue advantages of the illiteracy of respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs concocted false GPA dated 06.06.2008. 5. On receipt of summons, the present petitioner contested the suit and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. 6. Based on the rival contentions, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have lead in evidence. The petitioner in support of his contention has commenced with the evidence and at this stage, petitioner has come up with the application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC requesting the Court to secure the original FSL and hand writing finger print expert report pertaining to GPA dated 06.06.2008 executed by respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs which is a part of record in CC No. 694/2011. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed objections to the applications. 8. The trial Court after examining the material on record has proceeded to reject the application by holding that if the FSL report is submitted before the Prl. JMFC, Gokak, then there would be no impediment for the petitioner to obtain certified copy of the same even though it is unexhibited document. 8. The trial Court after examining the material on record has proceeded to reject the application by holding that if the FSL report is submitted before the Prl. JMFC, Gokak, then there would be no impediment for the petitioner to obtain certified copy of the same even though it is unexhibited document. The trial Court was of the view that the petitioner can secure certified copy of the said record and no purpose will be served in calling for the said record. The trial Court was also of the view that if the original documents is sought to be secured that would protract the hearing of the suit and would also hamper the progress of the criminal case. On this set of grounds, the trial Court has proceeded to reject the application. 9. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued and would submit that respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have specifically alleged fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence against the present petitioner in securing the alleged GPA dated 06.06.2008 and in this context the petitioners are entitled to lead evidence by relying on the FSL report. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the reasons assigned by the Court below and would contend that the signatures on the alleged GPA are not disputed only the contents of GPA are disputed. FSL report which was placed on record in the criminal proceedings would only indicate who has signed the documents and who has affixed LTM. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs have not disputed the signatures, but are seriously disputing the contents of GPA. 11. The respondents have specifically averred in para 3 of the plaint, which is culled out for the better understanding: " Believing his words the plaintiffs have executed the alleged Power of attorney authorizing the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to make correction of revenue records only nothing else. Neither the deft. Nos.1 and 2 nor Notary read over contents of the alleged power of attorney to the plaintiffs nor in their presence execution made and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 took the signature and thumb impression on the said blank documents under guise of correction of records only" 12. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have come with the case of fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence. 1 and 2 took the signature and thumb impression on the said blank documents under guise of correction of records only" 12. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have come with the case of fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence. The charge of fraud amounts to criminal offence whether made in civil or criminal proceedings must be established by adducing cogent and clinching evidence. The entire burden is on the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs to establish fraud and misrepresentation. 13. In this background if the application filed by the present petitioner is examined, this Court of the view that the FSL report produced in criminal case is not at all necessary for deciding the case. It is settled proposition of law that when the Court ventures in securing the records or documents from other Court in pending proceedings, the Court is required to be examine carefully, if such records are absolutely necessary. 14. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Papanna and others V/s. H.Dodde Gowda and others, (1987) 2 KarLJ 223 has held that the provision of Order XIII Rule 10(1) of CPC R/w. 76 and 77 of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 gives wide powers to the Court to secure records from any other Courts, but this power which is discretionary, is required to be exercised in terms of provisions contained in Rule 76 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice and sub rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order XIII of the Court. The Division Bench was of the view that there should be serious application of mind of the Court as to the documents and the records which are required to be called for from other records. 15. In this background, if the pleadings at para 3 of the plaint are meticulously examined; this court is of the view that the documents sought to be secured has no bearing on the lis and controversy between the parties. Para 3 of the plaint would clearly demonstrate that the GPA is not all disputed. What is in dispute is the contents of GPA. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have alleged fraud, misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in getting the GPA executed. 16. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 17. What is in dispute is the contents of GPA. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have alleged fraud, misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in getting the GPA executed. 16. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 17. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that the order passed in O.S.No.218/2011, on I.A.No.26 filed under Order under 13 Rule 10 of CPC by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak does not suffer any illegality and infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.