IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.NO.20098 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN P.SUBRAMANI, S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELATHUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560067. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND C.MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560067. ... RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS D/W IN TERMS OF MEMO DATED 26.07.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT TO TRACE THE CASE FILE PERTAINING TO O.S. 1013/2004 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner being the plaintiff in suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1013/2004, is knocking at the doors of this court seeking a direction to reconstruct the missing Case File. Notice to respondent/defendant is dispensed with in terms of Memo dated 26.07.2019.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this court grants limited indulgence in the matter on the following grounds:
(i) the suit for specific performance is of the year 2004; it is founded on an Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.1996; the defendant having entered appearance, has filed his Written Statement on 22.03.2005; the suit was posted for hearing on 16.12.2014 when it stood adjourned to 17.02.2015, after it was transferred from the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore to that of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, by the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, for being tried with another suit in O.S.No.2195/2006;
(ii) on 17.02.2015, the suit was not listed as was ordered on 16.12.2014; this fact is stated to have been brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the court on that day and on subsequent days, as well; on enquiry with the pending clerk, the petitioner was told that the File was missing and immediately after it is traced, the suit would be posted for hearing; having waited for long, the petitioner has made representation dated 25.04.2016 to the Chief Administrative Officer, Bangalore Rural District Courts, Bangalore and representation dated 08.06.2016 also to the Chief Ministerial Officer, Senior Civil Judge Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore; nothing much happened pursuant to these representations; and, (iii) the petitioner on 15.12.2017 filed an application under section 151 of CPC for rebuilding the Case File; the same is supported by a narrative affidavit of the plaintiff who is a senior citizen; it is needless to mention that the court to which the File related has inherent power to reconstruct the lost File with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and others concerned; such an application having been filed, needs to be considered by the jurisdictional court in accordance with the norms obtaining in the field; this having not been done, the petitioner is justified in approaching this court.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed in part; the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Bangalore Rural District, shall consider the subject application, preferably within a period of eight weeks, after hearing both the stakeholders and the other concerned officials, in accordance with law.
The observations herein above made being confined to the disposal of the writ petition by an innocuous order, shall not influence the decision making in the application.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc