SHANTHI AGARWAL Vs. M MASTHAN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRPMP No. 396 of 2009 is filed to direct the X Additional Junior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to proceed with the further steps in o. S. No. 3415 of 2004 notwithstanding the pendency of this CRP No. 3163 of 2008 and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) WHILE admitting the present CRP on 01-08-2008, this Court granted interim suspension as prayed for in CRPMP No. 4229 of 2008. Though this matter is appearing under the caption "interlocutory", at the request of the counsel on record, the present CRP itself is being disposed of finally. In view of the same, no further orders need be passed in crpmp No. 396 of 2009 and accordingly the said application is hereby closed.

(3.) SRI J. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, had taken this court through Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "code" for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that it is not open to a party to call for a public document, relating to which a certified copy can be obtained. The learned counsel also pointed out that it is well-settled that certified copy of a decree can be well obtained and when that being so, such application calling for decree copy from another court definitely is a mis-conceived remedy. The learned counsel also would maintain that the application had been thought of, only with a view to procrastinate the proceedings and that the learned Judge should have appreciated the same. When it is the case of the petitioner that the original decree copy was mis-placed, there is no point in summoning the same and there is absolutely no proof of the factum of loss of the decree copy. The learned counsel also incidentally pointed out to Sections 65, 74, 76 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the high Court of Karnataka in "papanna and others Vs. H. Dodde Gowda and others"