BHOGARAJU Vs. SITHARAMAKRISHAMRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though these two CRPs arise out of two different orders, since the substance thereof is common, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in these CRPs, filed applications I.A. No. 1039/82 and I.A. No. 1040/82 under Order 13 rule 10 CPC to send for the documents Exs. B-l, B-2 and Exs, X-l to X-33 marked in O.S. No. 124/80 by D.W.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they and the defendant O.S. No.-124/80 are the tenants under the respondent. The respondent authorised his agent to collect the rents on his behalf and in pursuance of that authorisation, the petitioners and the defendant in O,S. No. 124/80 paid the rents to the agent. Thus, they did not commit any default nor are they in arrears to pay the rent. To substantiate this contention, the documents, Exs. X-l toX33 marked through D.W. 2 and Exs. B-l and B-2 filed by the defendant therein are necessary for just disposal of these suits as well. Since they are not parties to the suit O.S. No. 124/80 and the documents have been marked through a witness, they could not get the authenticated copies thereof. Therefore for the effective and proper disposal of the suits, those documents are necessary and they may be summoned. This contention was negatived by the lower Court holding that the petitioners did not specify how they are relevant for the purpose of their suits.

(3.) Sri Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that under Order 13 rule 10 CPC it is for the petitioners by way of affidavits to show how the record is material to the suit and how they could not without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy thereof and how they are necessary for the purpose of justice. These essential facts have not been established and therefore the lower Court has rightly rejected the applications to send for the documents.