SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1315

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
B.S. Bhanumathi, J.
Jampala Malayadri Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Meruva Subrahmanyam – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1628 of 2019
Decided On : 02-05-2022

The court has inherent power to reconstruct a lost plaint in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE - RECONSTRUCTION OF LOST PLAINT - INHERENT POWER OF COURT - EXERCISE OF - CONDITIONS - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 12 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The original plaint was misplaced in the office of the advocate. A petition was filed seeking permission to re-construct the plaint based on the duplicate copy of plaint and other records filed earlier at the time of filing of the suit in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet and which is now available in the suit bundle sent to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Guduru.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that when a document is lost from the custody of a Court, since act of Court shall not prejudice no one, by exercise of its inherent power, reconstruction of the said document is permitted. However, in the present case, the loss of record is not from the custody of the Court. The grounds on which the record was returned will not be available since no record of grounds for return is maintained in Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the court has the inherent power to reconstruct a lost plaint? 2. Whether the petitioner can be granted permission to file a fresh suit?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has inherent power to reconstruct a lost plaint in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice. 2. The petitioner can be granted permission to file a fresh suit, if so advised, since the law of limitation for the suit is 12 years and the petitioner has spent time in a bona fide pursuit of the case.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this revision shall stand dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dtd. 12/3/2019, passed in C.F.No.1347 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nellore.

2. Heard Sri T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. The 5th respondent is shown to be not a necessary party to this revision.

3. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet, and written statement was filed. As per the finding in I.A.No.352 of 2016 on court fee in preliminary enquiry, the suit falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Court of Senior Civil Judge at Guduru. The plaint, after return from the Junior Civil Judge's court, Naidupet, was presented in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, and it was returned with some objections. Subsequently, the original plaint was misplaced in the office of the advocate.

4. A petition was filed seeking permission to re-construct the plaint based on the duplicate copy of plaint and other records filed earlier at the time of filing of the suit in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet and which is now available in the suit bundle sent to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Guduru.

5. By the docket order, dtd. 12/3/2019, the learned Prl. District Judge, Nellore, rejected the petition observing that there is no procedure for reconstruction of a original plaint, which is missing from the custody of the plaintiff or his advocate and that further that Court has no jurisdiction with regard to passing any order regarding an issue pending before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gudur.

6. The revision petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the finding that no permission can be accorded in respect of the record, which is not lost from the custody of the Court. It is by exercise of inherent power of Court, permission is granted for reconstruction of record lost.

7. In Kasireddy Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,2021 (5) ALD 381 (AP) . it was held at paragraph Nos.9 to 11 as follows:

    "9. It should be noted that Courts by exercising the inherent jurisdiction reconstruct the records that were misplaced, lost or destroyed during their custody so as to avoid any prejudice being caused to the parties. The object behind reconstruction of records is based on the maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court, vide Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania: AIR 2010 SC 3745. Regarding the inherent power of the Court, we have some case law.

    (i) In Marakkarutti v. T.P.M. Veeran Kutty, AIR 1923 Mad. 647, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras tried to trace the origin of the inherent power of the Court to construct the record. It observed thus: "2. xxxx..... I think that one can safely start with the proposition that there is inherent power in every Court to reconstruct its own records, and I think it follows that there is inherent power in the Appellate Court to reconstruct the records of the Court from which an appeal lies to it. This power has been recognised in England and in America, which follows the English Common Law, and also in this Country. The English case that is quoted on the subject is Douglass v. Yallop, 97 E.R. 532. The matter was more fully discussed in an American case, McLendon v. Jones, 42 Am. Dec. 640, a judgment of the Court of Alabama which quoted and followed Douglass v. Yallop (supra) and a case which had been decided by the Supreme Court of New York; and that case points out, "Cases must frequently have occurred in which, by accident, the records of Courts of Justice have been destroyed or lost, and it would seem strange if the Common Law had provided no adequate means by which the injuries growing out of such accident could be aver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top