VENKATA RAMANA RAJU Vs. KRISHNAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a third-party in the suit. He filed an application to summon the documents from the custody of the Regional Transport Authority, Vizianugaram. That application was dismissed. Against that order, the present C.R.P. has been filed:

(2.) Order 13, Rule 10 (2) CPC postulates that every application made under this rule shall be supported by an affidavit. The affidavit shall disclose circumstances under which he cannot without unreasonable delay or expense, obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or such portion thereof as the applicant requires or that the production of the original record is necessary for the purpose of justice.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he and the judgment-debtor filed a joint application before the Regional Transport Authority and that application is pending consideration and that would establish that he has got an interest in the subject of attachment, and therefore that application is necessary for the ends of justice and for the just adjudication of the case. The lower court has found that there is no explanation given as to why he could not obtain a copy of that application filed before the Regional Transport Authority. Admittedly the Regional Transport Authority is a statutory quasi-judicial authority and certified copies of all the proceedings pending before it, could be obtained and produced before the Court. That step has not been taken by the petitioner, nor satisfactory explanation has been given as to why _the certified copy could not be obtained. Under these circumstances, the finding of the lower court that the petition was filed with an intention to drag on the proceedings, amply bear out the justification therefor. Accordingly, the lower court did not commit any error of jurisdiction in refusing to summon the document, The C.R.P. does not wan ant any interference.