Summoning official records is unnecessary under Order 16 CPC if documents are available with parties.

The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for the recovery of money, alleging that they supplied stone minerals (gitti) to the petitioners/defendants for road construction work between 2012 and 2017

The petitioners filed a written statement denying the period of supply and the quantity claimed, asserting that all dues for the period 2013–2016 had been paid

The petitioners moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC to summon a Mining Inspector to produce official records of transit and pit passes for 2012–2014 to verify the volume of minerals removed

The trial court rejected the application on July 18, 2025, observing that the defendants could produce their own copies of the documents

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC to summon official mining records for the production of transit passes

The court primarily applied Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which regulates the summoning of witnesses and the production of documents

It further relied on the principle that the court should not facilitate a "roving enquiry" into a party's business when the necessary evidence (tripartite pit passes) is already within the knowledge or possession of the parties

The court found that pit passes are generated in triplicate, with copies distributed to the seller, the purchaser, and the Mining Department

Upon perusal of the trial record, the court noted that the petitioner’s own witness (DW-1) had already exhibited 25 pit passes and a three-page summary during his deposition on September 18, 2025

The court reasoned that since the defendants had already submitted their copies of the passes to the M.P. Road Development Corporation, they could have summoned records from that specific agency if needed, rather than demanding the entire record from the Mining Department

The court concluded that calling for the entire official data was a "superfluous and unnecessary exercise" that would complicate the suit rather than serve the interests of justice, especially since the relevant evidence was already being produced by the defendants themselves

The court answered the issue in the affirmative, validating the trial court’s refusal to summon the Mining Inspector

The petition was dismissed