ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants No.1 and 4 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against order dated 10.12.2022, passed by the third Civil Judge Senior Division Dhar in RCSA No.101/2017; whereby, the petitioner/defendants No.1 and 4's application filed under Order 13 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘CPC’) to bring certain documents in evidence, has been rejected. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Bastanti Bai has filed the Civil Suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, partition and recovery of the amount of the award in a land acquisition proceedings. In the aforesaid civil suit, the case is at the stage of recording of evidence of the plaintiff, and during which initially an application under Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC dated 3.8.2022 was filed by the petitioners (Annexure P-6) to call for the record of Tehsil Court on the ground that in the aforesaid proceedings in the Court of Tahsildar, the plaintiff had admitted the factum of partition and on that basis the order has been passed by the Tahsildar on 10.2.2016. The certified copies of which have also been placed on record. The aforesaid applications has been dismissed by the learned judge of the trial Court on 30.9.2022 holding that the plaintiff has unnecessarily filed the application only to drag the case as the plaintiff could have filed legible certified copies of the aforesaid proceedings instead of seeking the original record from the Tahsildar's Court. 3. In respect of the aforesaid order dated 30.9.2022, an application for review was also filed on 9.11.2022, and subsequently another application under Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC was filed on 6.12.2022. Both these applications have been rejected by the learned judge of the trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.10.2022, holding that the defendants were aware of the denial of the said partition since 2019, and since the certified copies of the proceedings have already been placed on record, and as the earlier application has also been dismissed by the said Court on 30.9.2022, no case for review is made out. 4. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid document are necessary for proper defence of the petitioner/defendants and by refusing to call for the aforesaid record, the learned judge of the trial Court has prejudiced the defence of the petitioner/defendant and the petitioner has been deprived of a fair opportunity to contest the matter. In support of his contention, Shri Akhilesh Sharma, has relied upon a decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in the case of Ayodhya Prasad V. Dayaram and another reported in 2015(III) MPWN 57 . 5. On the other hand, Shri Anshul Raj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff, by way of amendment has denied in toto the factum of any partition having been made in the Court of Tahsildar. She has also denied having signed any document at all. Thus it is submitted that since the aforesaid amendment was carried out by the plaintiff on 7.5.2019, the petitioner/defendants had ample opportunity to call for the aforesaid record, however, the petitioner never filed any such application at the earliest opportunity and in such circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned judge of the trial Court in rejecting the application. Counsel has also submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner has not challenged the earlier order dated 30.9.2022; whereby, the petitioner's application under Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed and in such circumstances, in absence of any challenge to the aforesaid order, this petition is also not maintainable. 6. In the subsequent application also neither there is any reference of earlier applications being dismissed nor the ingredients of Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC are present. Thus, it is submitted that no interference is made out. 7. Heard. 8. 6. In the subsequent application also neither there is any reference of earlier applications being dismissed nor the ingredients of Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC are present. Thus, it is submitted that no interference is made out. 7. Heard. 8. On perusal of the application filed under Order 13 rule 10 of CPC, this Court finds that it is a badly drafted application in which there is no reference of dismissal of an identical application on prior occassion and the petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground only, however, looking to the point involved, petitinoers are granted liberty to file a fresh application under Order 13 rule 10 of CPC before the trial Court, and the learned judge of the trial Court is requested to decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned order. Petition stands disposed of.