Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 2.1.2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 18.10.2003 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Jodhpur) by which he accepted the application (Annex. 1) filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 C.P.C. and ordered that the documents mentioned in para No. 2 of the application (Annex. 1) be produced by the petitioners-defendants be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 and 2) field a suit for claim of Rs. 80,097/- against the present petitioners-defendants for Medi Claim Insurance in the Court of respondent No. 3 and the defendants-petitioners filed reply and thereafter issues were framed on 30.5.2002 and the case was fixed for evidence of the claimants-respondents on 8.8.2002. (ii) Further case of the petitioners is that on 8.8.2002, no witness was produced on behalf of the claimants respondents. However, the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 C.P.C. stating that respondent No. 3 be asked to produce the following documents : (a) Misc. Insurance Cover Note No. 110661 dated 22.3.99 (b) Medi Claim Police 4833050000871 (c) Receipt No. 781048 dated 22.3.99 (d) Original application dated 15.5.99 (e) Insurance Personal statement dated 14.5.99. (ii) Further case of the petitioners is that they submitted reply (Annex. 2) to the application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) stating that the documents sought through application (Annex. 1) should have been produced by the plaintiff alongwith their plaint and therefore, at this stage, they could not ask the defendants-petitioners to produce them and hence the application be rejected. (iii) Not only this, the Petitioners-defendants also enclosed application dated 15.5.99 (Annex. 3) filed by the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 and 2) and a bare perusal of the application dated 15.5.99 (Annex. 3) would reveal that the plaintiffs never submitted cover note, receipt and personal statement and hence no case is made and application (Annex. 1) be dismissed. (iv) The respondent No. 1 (Additional Dist. Judge) after hearing both the parties allowed the application (Annex. 1) vide its order dated 18.10.2003 (Annex. 4) inter alia holding : (a) That in support of the application (Annex. 1), affidavit of Sumer Chand (plaintiff No. 1) was filed by the plaintiffs. (b) That the documents in question were not produced in the Court because they were with the defendants-petitioners. (c) That no receipt has been produced by the defendants-petitioners to show that they had handed over the above documents to the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 and 2) (v) Aggrieved from the order dated 18.10.2003 (Annex. 4), this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Heard and perused the record.;