KARTAR KAUR Vs. ATUL KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the impugned order dated May 13, 1996 as the Learned Civil Judge (Jr Division), Ferozepur, had allowed the application under Order 18 Rule 17 -A Code of Civil Procedure moved by the Plaintiff -Respondents.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs before the trial Court, Respondents herein, had challenged the validity of the order dated February 22, 1991, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class Zira, vide which the possession of the land in dispute was delivered. The suit was contested by the Defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs wanted to produce certified copy of the order dated February 22, 1991, passed by Shri S.M.S. Mahil Sub Judge, Zira, as at the time of filing the suit they were in possession of the photocopy of the order, as the certified copy of the same was not available to them, therefore it could not be filed earlier.

(3.) IT is true that the Plaintiffs have challenged the validity of the order dated February 22, 1991, passed by Shri S.M.S. Mahil, Sub Judge, Zira, which is certainly the bash of the suit, but I have no hesitation to hold that the original document is beyond the reach of the Respondents. They had been making efforts to obtain the certified copy of the order but it was not supplied to them. The Copying Agency concerned had also reported that the file is not traceable. Thus, where the custodian of the judicial record expresses its inability to produce the original record, or to supply the certified copy of order because the file is not traceable, then responsibility of not exercising due diligence cannot be fastened on the Respondents. The Trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion by allowing the application under Order 18 Rule 17 -A CPC. Procedure is meant for advance and not for obstructing the cause of justice.