PRABAKAR Vs. LEKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th December 1966 of the learned Sub Judge Badarwah and arises out of civil suit No. 180 of 2001 which had a very chequered career.

(2.) THE suit, it appears, was instituted by Lekh Ram and Hari Ram sons of Pholu, residents of Kartan UdraUa, Tehsil Badarwah, on 26th Magh 2001 in the court of the Sub Judge, Badarwah, against Prem Nath son of Sorban, and Mst Sevti w/o Broya Ram for possession of one half share in the land measuring 124 kanals and 19 Â 1/2 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos 20, 14, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, Min. 31, 41, 46 48, 63 Min, 64 Min, 69, 71, 72, 73 and 97 situate in village Karian and Khasra. No, 75 in village Drodu, Tehsil Badarwah. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 30th Har, 200i, in favour of the plaintiffs. Against this Judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge Badarwah, Prabakar appellant, went up in appeal to the learned District, Judge, Jammu who vide his Judgment dated 12 -1 -2004 over set the Judgment of the trial court holding that Udho and Sant Ram, who were "prima facie necessary parties to the suit for deciding the claim of the plaintiff," not having been impleaded the finding of the trial court with regard to the issue "Whether Bidya Ram deceased came to hold 1/2 share in the joint property and how are the plaintiffs entitled to that share." could not be up -held, He accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of the trial court with regard to the issues referred to above and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that Udho and Sant Ram should be impleaded as defendants and the suit decided afresh according to Jaw. After the remand of the care, the building of the Sub Judges Court at Badarwah was gutted by fire which broke3 out on the night intervening 16/17th Baisakh 2004 The court was, therefore, obliged to another building which was also gutted by fire on the 8rh Maghar 2004 It further appears that after Udho and Sant Ram were impleaded as parries as directed by the learned District Judge Jammu, vide his judgment dated 12 -1 -2004, the suit went on for some time in the trial court and on 9 -4 -1957 corresponding to 16th Chet 2014, the amended plaint was filed by lekh Ram and Hari Ram in the court of the Sub Judge Badarwah. Alongwith the petition of the amended plaint, an application was presented to the learned Sub Judge, Badarwah, for reconstruction of the previous record of the case which had been gutted by fire. This application was resisted by Prabakar and others on the grounds that at the time of breaking out of the fire, no such suit was pending in the court, the record of which could be reconstructed, and that in any event the application for reconstruction of the record was time barred. Both the contentions raised by the defendants -appellants were rejected by the learned trial court.

(3.) IT is now conceded before me that the civil suit No. 180 was instituted by Lekh Ram and Hari Ram and was remanded on appeal by the learned Dr strict Judge Jammu The only plea urged before me in Support of the revision petition is that the application made by the plaintiffs for reconstruction of the record was time barred.