YOGENDRA NATH BOHARE Vs. RAVINDRA NATH BOHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order, Annexure P-1, dated 6.11.2012 and 12.10.2012, Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. By the said orders, applications preferred by petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 16 Rule 6 and Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, are decided.

(2.) A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. He preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stating that the defendant has filed certain documents on 12.10.2012. On the basis of one document, the plaintiff enquired and found on 1.11.2012 that the defendant No.1 had sold the disputed land by registered sale deed dated 23.4.1997. The plaintiff intended to implead earlier buyer and intended to implead him as a defendant. For that purpose an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is filed. By filing application under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC, the plaintiff prayed for summoning the record from Central Railway, Jhansi. By filing the application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC (Annexure P-9) it is stated that the statements of Vinod Depuriya and Ramavtar are necessary. In addition, statements of Vishwanath, Ramtirth, Girija Shankar and Suresh Babu are also necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter. It is stated that those witnesses are related with defendant No.1 and, therefore, are not willing to depose their statement on the request of the plaintiff. They are also employees of Department of Railways and being Government employees, not willing to come to depose the statement without summons of the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that they be summoned to depose their statement.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid applications.