Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1278
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
M. Chinnappan & Others
Versus
P. Shanmugam & Others
C.R.P. (PD) MD. No. 531 of 2009
Decided On :Decided on : 20-04-2009
For the Petitioners:N. Marivel, Advocate.
The Court emphasized the inherent power of the Court to direct reconstruction of records in certain cases and the need for prompt reporting of missing records.
Headnote:
Missing Records - Civil Revision Petition - M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 - R.O.C. No. 4121/80/F1, American Court in Mc.London v. Joines, Marakkarutti v. T.P.M. Veeran Kutty, Katam Achutharamayya v. Rikki Nagabhushanan, Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, Dr. K. Srinivasan v. P. Srinivasan
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners sought the court's order to direct the Sub Judge to dispose of the send for memo petition filed in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 within a stipulated period. The records in the case had gone missing, causing delays in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the Sub Judge to take necessary action against the errant staff members for the missing records and ordered the revision petitioners to approach the Sub Judge for filing necessary applications for withdrawal of the entitled money.
Issues: Delay in disposal of send for memo petition, missing records, entitlement to claim amount
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for prompt reporting of missing records and referred to legal precedents allowing for reconstruction of lost records. It also highlighted the inherent power of the Court to direct reconstruction of records in certain cases.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was disposed of with directions for the Sub Judge to take action against errant staff members and for the revision petitioners to approach the Sub Judge for filing necessary applications for withdrawal of the entitled money.
The revision petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition praying for issuance of an order of this Court in directing the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, to dispose of the send for memo petition filed on 26.09.2008 in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 within the stipulated period.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, the first revision petitioner is the second claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai and that an award of Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) has been passed in favour of the first revision petitioner and others, and further that, the first revision petitioner and others have received 1/4th of the decreetal amount from the trial Court immediately after passing of the award and that in A.A.O.812 to 829 of 1986, the Insurance Company has received half of the amount deposited before the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai and that the petitioners have filed a send for memo petition for transferring their claim amount which has been deposited in the State Bank of India, Vettikadu Branch to the Court deposit for filing an appropriate application to withdraw the said amount, on 26.09.2008, but the Tribunal viz., the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, has not disposed of the send for memo petition and that he has given a complaint before the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, on 16.12.2008 and that the same has been sent to the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, for taking appropriate action in regard to the missing of the bundle in the Sub Court, Pattukottai and that on 22.01.2009, the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai has issued a notice to the first revision petitioner to appear before him on 29.01.2009 at about 04.00 p. m for proper disposal of the petitioners complaint, but so far the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai has not disposed of the send for memo petition filed on 26.09.2008 and that the first revision petitioner is a Senior Citizen unable to travel long distance and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in directing the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, to dispose of the send for memo filed on 26.09.2008 in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 within a fixed time to be determined by this Court.
3. Earlier, in M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2009 in C.R.P (SR) MD. No. 7943 of 2009, (later on, directed by this Court to be numbered and numbered as C.R.P (PD) MD. No. 531 of 2009), praying permission of this Court to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the send for memo petition in M.C.O. P. No. 97 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, this Court on 08.04.2009, has directed the learned Principal Judge, Thanjavur, to submit a report in regard to the missing of the entire bundle in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pattukottai, from the first week of October 2008 within ten days from the date of receipt of the communication of the order and thereafter, the Registry has been directed to place the said report before this Court for consideration without fail.
4. However, the Deputy Registrar (Accounts) of this Court, in C.O. No. 116/2009 dated 08.04.2009, has addressed the communication (by fax through the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur) to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pattukottai, calling for the report as to the missing of the entire bundle in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the communication of the said order passed in M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2009 in C.R.P(SR)MD. No. 7943 of 2009, dated 08.04.2009.
5. The learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, in his report dated 16.04.2009, addressed to this Registry has stated that the entire bundle in M.C.O.P. No. 97/85 on the file of this Court has been traced out today and the case records have mingled with other disposed case bundles and on perusal of the connected records, Rs. 6,35,125/
