CHANNAMMA Vs. B.M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17 -10 -2011 passed by the Court below rejecting I.A. No. 10 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. By this application the petitioners/plaintiffs prayed for allowing them to lead secondary evidence by producing photocopy of the memorandum of Writ Petition No. 3033 of 1987. That application came to be rejected for the reasons stated in the order. In the course of hearing of this petition, I called the Registrar Judicial to find out whether original memorandum of the writ petition is available on record. After enquiry, I was informed that the registry by mistake destroyed the original memorandum of writ petition. On the basis of the record that is available with the registry in respect of the said writ petition it revealed that the petitioner in the said writ petition i.e. respondent 1 in the present writ petition had filed I.A. No. 1 of 2013 seeking restoration of the said writ petition which had been dismissed for non -prosecution vide order dated 21 -11 -1994. The respondent 1 had also placed a copy of the memorandum of the writ petition on record along with I.A. No. 1 of 2013 since the original memorandum of writ petition was destroyed.

(2.) IN view of these facts, as revealed in the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh application for similar relief after obtaining certified copy of the memorandum of writ petition filed by respondent 1 along with I.A. No. 1 of 2013. In all fairness, learned Counsel for respondent 1 has not opposed the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty as prayed. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: