Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.2, Bharatpur (Raj.) (hereinafter to be referred as 'learned trial Court') whereby application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 10 readwith Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been rejected.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he moved an application under Order 13 Rule 10 readwith Section 151 CPC wherein he pointed out that the defendants in their written statement mentioned about the agreement entered into between the petitioner-plaintiff and third party on 19.07.2007. Averments relating to the said agreement have been referred to by the defendants as a part of his defence. The document agreement dated 19.07.2007 has been a subject matter of proceedings initiated by the petitioner-plaintiff by filing an FIR No.412/2013 at Police Station, Bayana against the said third party as well as against the defendants wherein the police has taken into possession the said original document dated 19.07.2007. Keeping in view that the original document agreement dated 19.07.2007 is relevant for the purpose of true and correct disposal of the present suit, the application was moved under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC praying for directing the concerned police station to place the same on record and to produce it before the Court. It was asserted that the document was a relevant piece of evidence and necessary and, therefore, it may be called for.
(3.) Learned Counsel submits that the trial Court has fallen in error in rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner has limited the scope of Order 13 Rule 10 CPC to mean calling record or document from another Court alone and would not extend to documents which are in possession of police authorities as in the present case. The trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the same is not relevant without even examining the document itself. He also relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi & Anr. Vs. Chinnammal Alias Rayyammal & Ors., 2009 13 SCC 25.;