N.K. Jain, J. - (1.) This case comes up on the application filed by the petitioner for calling the documents. It is also stated that earlier application dated 3.9.1990 for calling the record is also pending on which it has been ordered on 26.3.91 that the same will be considered at the time of admission/final hearing. The petitioner in all has moved four applications; application dated 3.9.1990 for calling the record from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; application dated 23.1.1995 for placing the documents Annexure 20 to 23 on record; application dated 10.5.95 for placing the documents Annexure 24 to 28; and the application dated 10.5.95 for summoning the original documents Annexure 19 to 28.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applications for calling the documents are not relevant for the disposal of the writ petition pending since 26.3.9() in admission. Calling of the documents will amount to abuse of the process of the court particularly when petitioner has no case on merits and (has) moved only with an ulterior motive and mala fides and a delaying tactics. The applications as well as the writ petition may be dismissed with costs. Before considering applications, it is necessary to see whether the petitioner has a prima facie case in his favour or not, so as to call desired documents.
(3.) The petitioner's case is that the petitioner-company is a duly constituted and registered private company under the Indian Companies Act on 1.12.1989 which is evident from the certificate Annexure 1. It is alleged that two units, namely, Gem Textiles (P) Ltd. and New Rajasthan Processors were situated in common premises at E-1 and E-2 MI.A., Second Phase Basni, Jodhpur, which were taken over/auctioned by the RFC under section 29 of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act in October, 1988, for sale/auction due to non-payment of loan. It is alleged that a notice was published in a newspaper on 7.10.1988 for the sale and auction of the disputed property of the two units, but could not be auctioned as no offer was received; so also in November, 1988, and December, 1988. It is also alleged that on coming to know (of) the said advertisement and being interested, the petitioner company gave offer for the purpose (purchase ?) of two units along with demand draft of Rs. 1.23 lakhs towards earnest money.;