DES RAJ ALIAS PARBHATU Vs. RAGHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application supported by an affidavit, the applicants seek the return of some of the documents filed with the Revision Petition in this court, which stood decided on 28-8-2000 in invoking the provisions of Order 13, Rule 9 of the CPC. It was further submitted that no special leave to appeal has been preferred against the final decision in the Supreme Court. The details of the documents filed with the Revision Petition by the applicants are given in para No. 2 of the application. For facility of reference, the documents produced are detailed as under :

(2.) That the Revision was accepted and ex parte decree passed by the City Judge, Jammu was set aside. That the suit was remanded for hearing to the Trial Court, which further stood transferred to Munsiff, R. S. Pura. In subsequent suit, the applicants stated to have taken a plea that as the previously dismissed-in-default suit was not got restored by Raghunath Singh, as such, the subsequent suit was not maintainable. It is further contended that fresh suit on the same cause of action against the same defendant, therefore, was barred under Order 9, Rules 8 and 9. In order to support this plea, the applicants applied for certified copies of the documents described in para 2 of the application to the Munsiff, R.S. Pura. The said application was returned with the report of the Record Keeper that the file of the suit could not be traced out on account of bad shape of the record room. That the applicants, therefore, are left with no choice but to apply for the return of the certified copies of the documents placed with the Revision Petition in alleging that these copies are no longer required with the file of the Revision Petition, as the decision dated 28-8-2000 has assumed finality.

(3.) On a plain reading of Order 13, Rule 9, it is indisputably gatherable that original documents can be allowed to be taken away after placing its certified copies on record. It is further contemplated by the Rule that returning of documents without following the procedure under this rule is a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Proviso to Order 13, Rule 9 is relevant in this case and is reproduced as under :