P.C. Jain, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.1995 passed by the learned addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner, by which the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioners under Order 11 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code. was dismissed, has filed this revision petition under Section 115 CPC.
(2.) The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-non-petitioners with the averments that there is a building situated in the Bikaner City known as 'Sukhlekha Katla'. The building is more than 100 to 150 years old. A large number of tenants are residing in that building. The defendants No.1 to 9 are also having their offices in its building. The defendant non-petiotners No. 1 to 8 have also got a strong room. According to the plaintiffs, the condition of the building has become very weak and there is every danger of its collapse at any time. The railway line, which was meter gauge, has been converted into board gauge. Violent vibrations generated by the railway line, further aggravated the life of the building. The natural calamities also contributed in this regard inasmuch as there was heavy rainfall on 8th and 9th July 1993 and the rainwater entered in the Bank premises of non-petitioner No. 1 to 8 and even entered in to the wrong room of the bank. So much so the Bank could not function on the said dates. The on- petitioners also started illegal construction without the permission of the plaintiffs, which has caused many cracks in the building. The plaintiff- petitioners, therefore, prayed that the non-petitioners be restrained form going ahead with the alleged illegal construction. The defendant-non- petitioners submitted a written statement to the suit and denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff-petitioners on 28.5.1993. The plaintiff- petitioners moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code. and prayed that the defendant-non-petitioners may be ordered to produce the agreement that was executed between non-petitioners No. 1 to 9 as also the map that was prepared for carrying out the construction work. The non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 also got prepared a site report by the Civil Engineer in respect of the condition of the building. That report was also sought to be produced by the defendants. The application was opposed by the non-petitioners. The learned trial Court by its order dated 2.6.1995 dismissed the above application holdings that the above documents are not relevant to the issues of the suit. The learned trial Court also observed that a Commissioner has been appointed to inspect the site of the building and submit his report. That report would enlighten the Court about the exact condition of the building.
(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners did not appear but I considered the revision petition on merits and also heard learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners.;