HEMLATA VIJAYSINGH VEDH Vs. PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Notice of Motion has been filed by Defendant No.1 inter alia claiming the following reliefs :

(2.) On behalf of the Defendants the submissions have been advanced inquiry into the loss of the record by the office and without ascertaining whether the above suit was in fact pending, considering the lists prepared by the office of the pending suits in the years 1992, 2008 and 2010. It is also the submission of the Defendants that no opportunity has been given to the Defendants to take proper inspection. The Defendants have also questioned the reconstruction of the record at the behest of the Advocates of the Plaintiffs M/s. Udwadia & Udeshi who according to the Defendants were not authorised to participate in the process of reconstruction as they did not have the vakalatnama of the Plaintiffs to so represent them in the above suit at the relevant time.

(3.) In the light of the reliefs sought in the above Motion and in view of the fact that there is a serious issue as regards reconstruction of the record in the above suit, it would be necessary to take into consideration the facts antecedent to the filing of the above Motion. At the out set it would be relevant to note that the above suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs for redemption of the mortgaged properties and to have the same reconveyed to them and possession thereof. The record discloses that the process of reconstruction of the record in the above Suit was triggered of by the letter dated 13/8/2008 by which letter the advocates for the Plaintiffs wrote to the Defendants informing them that they are desirous of taking search of the papers and proceedings in the above suit on 14/8/2008 at 2.00 p.m. in the Court Office when the Defendants were requested to remain present if they so desired. It appears that simultaneously a letter was also addressed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master seeking search of the proceedings on the said day. Admittedly, the Defendants and their advocate did not remain present on 14/8/2008 at 2.00 p.m.. However, the search by Plaintiffs could not fructify as the papers in the above suit were not traceable in the department. The Plaintiffs, therefore, vide letter dated 21/10/2008 sought permission of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to reconstruct the papers and proceedings in the above suit.