SUSHIL GOEL Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the report on the record, all the respondents have been served.

(2.) Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 time is sought for presence of the arguing counsel. It is not considered appropriate to grant any adjournment for the same.

(3.) The petitioner assails the impugned order dated 24.07.2018 of the learned trial Court of the SCJ-cum-RC (North) in CS No. 150/2017 (New No. 847/2017) vide which an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC filed by the petitioner as plaintiff of the suit seeking directions to the defendant No. 5 arrayed as the respondent No. 5 to the present petition to produce original conversion file of the suit property, - was declined with it having been observed to the effect that it was for the plaintiff to prove his own case and that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed their documents in relation to the suit plot on the record and that the Court could not be made a tool to collect the evidence and that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein could always move an appropriate application before the DDA to get the certified copy of the required documents or could file an application under the RTI Act seeking the requisite information and that the plaintiff was at liberty to summon the said record at the time of evidence.