URMILA BANSAL Vs. GWALIOR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petition is filed by the petitioners who are plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by II Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 30A/02 whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 16 Rule 7 CPC. From perusal of the application, Annexure P -2, it is apparent that the application should have been filed under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC and not under Order 16 Rule 7 CPC. But merely wrong mentioning of the provision will not deprive any party from claiming relief. By the said application, the petitioners wanted to summon the record in respect of allotment of lands of Vinay Nagar, Sector 2. Such record is, admittedly, in possession of defendant No. 1 Gwalior Development · Authority. The Court below has refused to summon the record by observing that all these documents must have been in possession of the plaintiffs themselves. Even assuming that some record is available with the plaintiffs, still the plaintiffs have right to call the original record from the Gwalior Development Authority to prove their case.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiffs is that they were allotted two plots and while developing the colony their plots were reduced and they want to prove this fact by producing the record of Gwalior Development Authority. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the trial Court has committed procedural mistake in refusing the plaintiffs to summon the record. Petitioners plaintiffs have right to lead evidence of their own choice and they cannot be prevented from producing the evidence on such technical grounds.

(3.) AS regard ordinary copies of other documents produced by the plaintiffs is concerned, the trial Court can exhibit these documents after comparing with the original record produced by the Gwalior Development Authority. Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid direction with no order as to costs.