VIKRAM LUTHRA Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.3.2004 passed by the respondent No. 1.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit on 24.9.2003 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from demolishing the property in dispute. The petitioner has stated that the property in dispute was initially belonged to one Smt. Shashi which was purchased by Mr. Chandra Prakash by a registered sale deed on 8.12.1977. Sri Chandra Prakash constructed a shop and godown having tinned roof at the height of 20 feet and from the construction in question he has been running his business. After the death of Chandra Prakash the property was purchased by the petitioner from the son of Sri Chandra Prakash on 22.5.2003 and since then the petitioner is in exclusive possession over the property in question. The petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the suit he moved an application on 27.1.2004 praying that the entire record of case No. 1108/S -6/03 may be summoned from the M.D.D.A. The application has been filed under Order 13, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground that the office of the respondent No. 2 has refused to issue the copy of the orders passed in those proceedings. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.3.2004.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner. In my opinion there is no cause of action accrued to the petitioner to file the present writ petition in as much as the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application only on the ground that the petitioner has not established as to which of the document is required. The observations, of the Civil Judge to that effect are quoted below: