The destruction of court records deeply affects the functioning of the High Court as a judicial institution, and the court has the power to order a CBI investigation to ensure the integrity of the court records.

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. A suit was instituted on the Original Side of this Court in 1969 for the redemption of a mortgage executed on 3 September 1925. The Defendants to the suit are respectively a company owned and controlled by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India. The suit in question, L.C. Suit 36 of 1969 had been transferred to the list of long causes by Mr. Justice Nain on 12 August 1969. In a statement prepared by the registry of this Court on 31 January 1992 the suit was not shown to be pending before the Court. The statement prepared by the registry of the Court which showed the position of suits as on 1 January 1992 did not reflect the pendency of any suit of that year. A similar position obtained in a subsequent list which was prepared by the registry on 26 August 2008.

2. On 13 August 2008, nearly thirty years after the suit was instituted a letter was addressed by the advocate for the Plaintiffs to the Defendants informing them that they were desirous of taking search of the papers and proceedings in the suit on 14 August 2008 in the office of the Court when the Defendants were informed to remain present if they so desired. Simultaneously a letter was addressed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master for seeking search of the proceedings. The Plaintiffs, the Court is informed, were unable to take search on 14 August 2008 since the papers were not traceable in the department. On 26 December 2008 a clerk in the record department put up a precipe of the present advocates for the Plaintiffs, Messrs Udwadia and Udeshi, seeking reconstruction of the records and proceedings. The clerk stated that the suit was not traceable in the department despite a diligent search in the premises of the G.T. Hospital where the records are stored. The Assistant Prothonotary submitted that the explanation of the clerk may be accepted and an order of reconstruction may be passed. On 14 January 2009 the Prothonotary and Senior Master passed an order granting reconstruction of the record. A reconstruction of a record postulates, as a matter of first principle, that the proceedings of which reconstruction is sought are pending on the file of the Court. The order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master was admittedly passed without notice to the Defendants and without any determination of the issue as to whether the suit was pending on the file of the Court.

3. The suit was thereafter placed on Board before Learned Single Judges of this Court entrusted with the assignment of the trial of suits on the Original Side. When the suit came up for trial before a learned Single Judge on 14 August 2009 the Court proceeded on the basis that the suit was pending before the Court through the years. On 4 September 2009 issues were framed. On 8 December 2009 the learned Single Judge placed the suit for recording evidence on 16 December 2009 but reserved the objections of the Defendants on the ground that the records had not been reconstructed in accordance with law. On 4 January 2010 another learned Single Judge while placing the suit for cross-examination observed that the suit was one of the oldest suits on the file of the Court and which was yet to be disposed of. On 10 January 2010 a Motion was taken out before the learned Single Judge by the First Defendant seeking a stay of the hearing of the suit until an enquiry was conducted to ascertain whether the reconstruction of the proceedings was correctly allowed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Motion was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 10 February 2010.

4. The order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal. By an order dated 9 April 2010 the Division Bench recorded that the apprehension which was expressed on behalf of the Appellant was that it was likely that the suit may have been dismissed in default. The Court noted that though the Appellant was not in possession of any order of the Court dismissing the sui