Application to summon original records under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC requires prior diligent attempt to obtain certified copies.

The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking to extinguish the right of redemption of a mortgage, a declaration that certain revenue entries in the name of the State Government were void, and a direction to record their names in the revenue records

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on March 11, 2017

During the pendency of the regular appeal under Section 96 CPC, the petitioners filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC, requesting the Court to summon original settlement records from 1944-1945 from the District Collector

The Appellate Court rejected the application on February 18, 2025, leading to the present petition

1. Whether the application filed by the petitioners satisfied the statutory requirements of Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC for summoning original public records

2. Whether an application to summon records can be maintained at the appellate stage without a prior attempt to obtain certified copies or showing how the evidence is material

The Court applied Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC, which grants the Court discretion to send for papers from its own records or other Courts.

Specifically, Rule 10(2) dictates that such an application must be supported by an affidavit demonstrating (a) how the record is material to the suit and (b) that the applicant cannot obtain a duly authenticated copy without unreasonable delay or expense, or that the production of the original is essential for justice.

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC governs the admission of additional evidence in appeal, requiring the evidence to be filed with the application.

The Court observed that the petitioners’ application was "utterly lacking" in the mandatory requirements of Order 13 Rule 10(2) CPC.

The petitioners failed to show they had attempted to obtain certified copies prior to filing the application; notably, their requests for certified copies were only made in February 2025, after the Appellate Court had already rejected their application.

Furthermore, the application did not bring new evidence on record as required under Order 41 Rule 27, but instead sought to "fish out" evidence from government records.

The Court found that the facts sought to be proved were within the plaintiffs' knowledge during the trial, yet no attempt was made to summon the records then.

Consequently, the application was deemed an attempt to gather evidence by anticipation rather than a valid request for material evidence.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to obtain certified copies of the relevant documents and subsequently file a fresh, appropriate application before the Appellate Court in accordance with the law.