RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 25.2.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.61A/12 by the Court below, whereby the application of the petitioners/plaintiff filed under Order 16 Rule 1,5,6 & 7 r/w 151 CPC is rejected by the Court below.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed certified copy of certain documents showing his position at appellate stage. In written statement (Annexure P -3), the State refuted the contention of the petitioners and specifically contended that the document so produced by the petitioners are fabricated documents. This averment can be seen in paras 2 and 12 of the written statement. Faced with this situation, the petitioners filed application Annexure P -4 under Order 16 Rule 1,5,6 and 7 and prayed that the original record from the concerned department be summoned to verify the correctness and genuineness of the certified copies. The State filed its reply to the said application (Annexure P -8) on 20.2.2013 and contended that the State has no objection if the said record is called but the Court below rejected the said application on the ground that certified copies are already on record and, therefore, original record is not necessary. Criticizing this order, it is contended that once the genuineness of certified copy of the documents is called in question, in the fitness of things the original record needs to be summoned and Court below has erred in passing this order.

(3.) SHRI B.Raj Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate supported the order and submits that the Court below has not erred in passing the order.