R.S. Chauhan, J.@mdashIn pursuance of the public notice issued by this Court inviting litigant to come and argue their case in absence of their counsel, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the petitioner No. 1, has appeared before this Court. The petitioners have challenged the order dt. 24.9.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent-plaintiff and has summoned the Will dt. 24.10.1970 executed by a lady doctor Grace Harris from the office of Sub-Registrar, Sikar.
2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar has pleaded that since the Will is not connected with the dispute involved in the civil suit, the learned Judge should not have summoned the said document. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in invoking his power under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, and perused the impugned order.
4. Order 16, Rule 6 is as under:--
"6. Summons to produce document-Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same."
The provision bestows sufficient powers upon a trial Court to summon a document.
5. Issue No. 3, in the civil suit, is with regard to genuineness of the document submitted by the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner claims that the said document is a genuine one, and claims his interest in the property through the said document, the respondent-plaintiff pleads that the said document is a forged one. In order to prove the forgery of the signature of Dr. Grace Harris, the respondent-plaintiff had moved an application under Order 16, Rule 6 CPC for summoning the Will left by her, which is a registered Will. The learned Judge is certainly justified in noticing the fact that it is for the respondent-plaintiff to prove his case. Moreover, he has a right to seek a documentary evidence which is not in his possession but lies in the office Sub-Registrar, Sikar. It is only after comparing the signature on the document produced by the petitioner-defendant and the Will, which bears the genuine signature of Dr. Grace Harris that FSL would be in position to give a report with regard to the alleged signature on the document relied by the petitioner-defendant.
6. Since the learned Judge has given legally valid and cogent reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, the petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.
