RAM PRATAP Vs. MANPHOOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition against order dated 30.10.2000 of the learned trial Court whereby his application dated 24.10.2000 for summoning record has been rejected. In that application it has been stated by the defendant that original landlord Rameshwarlal had filed an application on 6.6.1972 in the Municipality which had already been decided by the Municipality. Therefore, it is the case of the defendant in the present suit that it is necessary to summon that original application of Rameshwarlal so as to prove signature of Rameshwarlal. Thus the prayer has been made to summon record of Municipality and Electricity department. The learned trial Court after having considered the contentions of the parties on this application arrived at the conclusion that earlier vide his applications dated 9.8.2000 and 17.8.2000 of the defendant, aforesaid two documents viz. application of Rameshwarlal dated 6.6.72 and electricity bills were sought to be taken on record and which were allowed by it and its certified copies are already on record inasmuch as while deciding his two earlier applications praying for summoning original record were declined by the trial Court in its order dated 16.9.2000. After having carefully perused earlier order dated 6.9.2000, the trial Court found that earlier prayer to summon record thorough his applications dated 9.8.2000 and 17.8.2000 has since been declined therefore, second application is not at all tenable and in this view of the matter the trial Court rejected the present application moved on 24.10.2000 by its order dated 30.10.2000.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions besides having perused the impugned order, so also earlier order dated 16.9.2000. (certified copy thereof has been produced during the course of arguments), I am of the considered view of the learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error or an other error of law apparent on the face of record by declining to summon the record sought for by the defendant through his second application whereas his earlier prayer for the self same reason had already been declined by allowing him to produce defence. In do not find any illegality or material irregularity resulting in any miscarriage of justice by virtue of the impugned order of the trial Court, the impugned order is perfectly justified warranting no interference by invoking Sec. 115 CPC.

(3.) As a result of the above discussion this civil revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed the impugned order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the civil judge (JD) Srimadhopur (District Sikar) in civil suit no. 388 of 1998 whereby the petitioners second application dated 24.10.2000, for summoning the record has been rejected is upheld there would be no order as at costs the eviction proceeding are pending for last 20 years as pointed out by the trial court in the impugned order therefore the trial Court is directed to decide the same as early as possible but not beyond six months from receipt copy of this order. Revision dismissed.