Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bheru Dan And Ors. vs Firm Sohanlal Shiv Narain on 21 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(3)WLC744, 1994(1)WLN629
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. This first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1978 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1974.
2. The aforesaid Civil Suit was filed on 1.5.1973 by respondent-firm against the defendant-appellants for recovery of Rs. 11,926/- on the ground inter-alia that a Partnership firm came into existence in the year 1958 having its three partner viz. Bheru Dan, Sohanlal and Shiv Narain. Out of three partners, Bherudan was acting partner whereas Sohanlal and Shiv Narain were sleeping partners. It was decided between them that Bherudan will have half share and Sohanlal and Shiv Narain will have 1/4 share each in the partnership firm. It is further alleged that Bherudan admitted to pay Rs. 10,106.54 on 4.5.70 but he failed to repay the said amount, which necessitated to file the Civil Suit on the basis of entry made by Bherudan in the ledgers of the firm. The suit was also filed against appellants No. 2,3 and 4 treating them as members of Hindu Joint Family of Bherudan.
3. The suit was contested by the appellants on the ground, inter alia, that the firm was not dissolved on 4.5.70 therefore the suit for accounting without dissolution of firm is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that one partner cannot be said to have any cause of action against another partner for balance of amount till final account is settled between them. It is also pleaded that Bherudan is the partner in his personal capacity and not as Karta of Joint Hindu Family, hence the appellants No. 2,3 and 4 are not liable to pay any amount even if it is proved that Bherudan is liable to pay any amount to the Firm.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and after framing the necessary issues attention of the parties was focussed to establish these issues.
5. In support of his plaint, the plaintiff respondent examined as PW 1 Ramchandra, PW 2 Sohanlal, PW 3 Ram Pratap and PW 4 Prithvi Raj, and on behalf of defendant appellants, Bherudan was examined as DW 1, Rameshwarlal as DW 2 and Ishwar Prasad as DW 3.
6. After discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on 16.8.78. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court.
7. The instant first appeal was admitted on 13.02.1979 while record was requisitioned from the trial court by the office of this Court on 8.6.88 after expiry of a about 9 years which was received by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar on 13.6.88. By that time, all oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties were weeded out.
8. The first appeal was taken up by this Court on 6.2.92 and it was found by the court that the record received from Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar did not contain the oral and documentary evidence of the parties. An explanation was called from Addl. District Judge as to why incomplete record was sent to this Court. The then additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar submitted his explanation, which is on record and informed this Court that remaining record containing Parts B, C and D had already been weeded out in absence of any information about filling of the first appeal before this Court against the judgment, and decree dated 16.8.78 passed by him in Civil Suit No. 11/74.
9. I have heard Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned Counsel for the respondent at length. From th grounds of appeal and points urged before me it is necessary to consider oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties before the trial court.,
10. In the instant first appeal, it is necessary to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court. As already stated above, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had already been weeded out with close mind by the Sub-ordinate Court without waiting intimation from this Court about decision in the first appeal against the mandatory provisions as contemplated under Rule 175 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986.
11. In the present case, I am constrained to observe that record of the Sub-ordinate Court Parts B,C and D containing the oral and documentary evidence had been weeded out by the Sub- ordinate Court causing miscarriage of justice to the parties for no fault of either of the parties, which amounts travesty of justice due to act and omission of Sub-ordinate Court and officer of the Court dealing with requisition of record from the trial court.
12. In my considered opinion, it is highest duty of the Court to take care that act or omissions of the courts or; act or omissions of its officers do not cause injury to any of the litigant which may occasion failure of justice and irreparable-loss and inconvenience to the litigant public. In the present case, by act of the officer of the court, the plaintiff- respondent is deprived off to enjoy the fruits of the decree in case the finding of the trial court is affirmed by this Court after expiry of long interval of 20 years. Similarly, after a prolonged litigation of more than 20 years the defendant-appellants are deprived off to demonstrate before this Court that the finding recorded by the trial court against them is not sustainable after analytical reapprisal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties.
13. Now, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in the preceding paragraphs, the following questions arise for determination:
1. WHETHER the instant first appeal could be decided in absence of Parts B, C and D of the record of the trial Court?
2. WHETHER record may be remitted to the trial court for re-construction of record and in case, the re-construction is not possible for de novo trial allowing the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence?
WHETHER it is permissible for the Subordinate courts or officer-in-charge of the Civil Court Record Room maintained at the District Head-quarter or .. at out-line courts to pass an order for weeding out the record of Parts B, C and D in those cases, where statutory appeal or revision or proceedings are pending before the higher courts without receiving intimation from such higher courts about the decision of such appeal or revision or proceedings and till the period of limitation for filing further appeal or revision expires?
13A. Since the aforementioned issues are interlinked therefore they are being taken up together.
14. Before interpreting the relevant provisions contained under Rule 175 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, it would be expedient to examine the source of this Rule, which has been framed by this Court for the guidance of the Civil Courts sub-ordinate to it.
15. The General Rules (Civil), 1986 have been framed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in exercise or powers conferred upon it by Article 227 of the Constitution of India in that behalf and with the approval of Governor of Rajasthan for the guidance of the Civil Courts subordinate to it. These Rules are called The General Rules (Civil), 1986. Under Rule 2 of the said Rules, it is clearly stipulated that these Rules will come into force from the date on which they are published in the Rajasthan Gazette and apply to all suits, appeals, proceedings and matters, so far as may be, in the Civil Courts Sub-ordinate to the High Court, pending or commenced on or subsequent to that date. Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules provides that all the previous Rules relating to matters which are provided for in these Rules, are hereby repealed.
16. As a matter of fact, these Rules were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part IV (C)(I) on 25.12.1986, which will be deemed to be the date its enforcement.
17. According to Rule 144 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986- civil courts suits have been divided into three classes and the present suit in controversy falls under Class III as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 144 of the said Rules. According to Rule 145 of the said Rules, the Record of an original civil suit or case shall be arranged in four Parts A, B, C and D. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 145 of the said Rules is quoted below in expense:
145. Arrangement of civil records:
(i)...
(2) (i) Part-A shall contain the following papers:
(a) Index papers.
(b) The order sheet.
(c) the plaint, petition or application together with any schedule annexed thereto.
(d) Any process served upon the defendant together with the return of service in cases decreed ex parte.
(e) Written statements and oral-statements of parties or their counsel or other persons recorded under Order X, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.
(f) The memorandum of issues.
(g) Any award of arbitrators or petition of compromise, if given effect to in the decree, also the report together with the map (if any) of a Commissioner in matters relating to immovable property, if referred to or given effect to in the decree, but not any portion of the evidence taken by such Commissioner; also in the case of minors or lunatics any order of the court sanctioning a compromise as beneficial to the minor or lunatic.
(h) Any order for administration or for partition or for accounts or inquiry with the direction given and the judgment upon which such order is founded.
(i) The judgment or final order.
(j) The preliminary decree (if any) and the final decree.
(k) The copy of any judgment and decree passed in appeal or revision.
(l) Any other paper, which the presiding officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing order to be placed in part-A.
(ii) Part-B shall contain the following papers:
(a) Index of papers.
(b) All oral evidence.
(c) Vakalatnama
(d) All petitions and papers not specified as included in any other part.
(iii) Part-C shall contain the following papers:
(a) Index of papers.
(b) List of documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.
(c) Documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.
(d) List of documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the defendants.
(e) Documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the defendants,
(iv) Part-D shall contain the following papers:
(a) Index of papers.
(b) All summonses, processes, returns thereto, list of witnesses, petitions relating to the attendance of witnesses or adjournments, proceedings calling for or sending papers or; record and affidavits relating to matters mentioned in this sub-rule, petitions for grant of copies or for inspection of records and papers relating thereto. (3) The papers in each part of a record shall be arranged in the order in which they are set-forth in these sub-rules. When there are several papers of the same kind, they shall be arranged in chronological order except that when a witness has been cross-examined or re-examined at a later stage of the proceedings, such cross-examination or re-examination shall be attached to his original deposition.
18. Part-A of Rule 145 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 is not relevant in the instant case therefore this part of record is not being discussed and being omitted in order to maintain brevity.
19. According to Rule 175 of the aforesaid Rules time limit is provided for preservation and destruction of record, which is material for just decision of the case therefore the entire Rule 175 is also quoted in extenso:
175. Preservation and destruction of record:
(1) Part-A of Civil Records of Class I shall be preserved permanently.
(2) Part-A of Civil Records of Class it shall be preserved for 50 years.
(3) Part-A of Civil Record of Class III shall be preserved for 24 years.
(3-A) Application under Order XXI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
In the case of execution applications of money decrees the record shall be preserved for 12 years from the date of the final decision in the execution case except in cases where an appeal or revision or any other proceeding against the order of executing court is pending in a higher court or immovable property has been attached in which case the record shall be preserved for 24 years.
(4) Parts B and C of Civil Records of Class I shall be preserved for 12 years.
(5) Part B and C of Civil Records of Classes II and III shall be preserved for 6 years.
(6) Part D of Civil Records of all Classes shall be preserved for 3 years.
Provided that in cases in which an appeal or revision or any other proceeding against the decree or order of the court is pending in a higher court, the entire record shall be preserved till the intimation is received from such higher court about the decision of such appeal or revision or such proceeding and till the period of limitation for filing further appeal or revision expires.
(Emphasis supplied).
20. According to the arguments advanced at the bar, it is urged that under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 175 of the said Rules, Parts B and C of the Civil Records shall be preserved for 6 years and under the proviso of the said Rules, it is clearly provided that in case in which appeal or revision or any of the proceeding against a decree or order of the Civil Court is pending in a higher court, the entire record shall be preserved till the intimation is received from such higher courts about the decision of such appeal or revision or such proceeding and till the period of limitation for filing further appeal of revision expires.
21. Before pronouncing the judgment, I have a discussion with the officer-in-charge of the Civil Record Room at Jodhpur and officers of the Registry of this Court about the practice prevailing in the sub-ordinate courts in Rajasthan regarding weeding out of record of Parts B and C containing oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties specially in those cases where appeals or revisions are filed in higher courts and such appeals and revisions are pending consideration before such higher courts. The officer-in-charge of the civil Record Room at Jodhpur as well as Officers of the Registry of this Court informed to the Court that it is the normal practice adopted by them invariably in the Sub-ordinate Courts in Rajasthan to weed out Parts B and C of the Civil Record of Class II and III after expiry of 6 years if the trial court's records are not summoned by the higher courts by way of requisition within the said period. According to them, if the sub-ordinate courts are not informed about the pendency of appeal or revision before the higher courts, they have no choice except to weed out Parts B and C of the record after expiry of 6 years. When explanation was asked by this Court in this case from the Sub-ordinate Court, the then Addl. District Judge; he submitted his explanation on 23.3.92 stating therein that since there is no information from this Court about the pendency of the present first appeal against his judgment and decree dated 16.8.78 passed in Civil Suit No. 11/74 therefore, Parts B and C records were weeded out after expiry of 6 years as prescribed under the General Rules (Civil), 1986. Thus, according to his explanation irrespective of the fact that the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.78 was pending before this Court yet since he has no information about the pendency of the first appeal therefore he was justified to weed out Parts B and C of the Record containing oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The then learned Addl. District Judge had submitted his explanation with close mind without making perusal of statutory General Rules (Civil), 1986. As a matter of fact there is no such provision in the General Rules (Civil), 1986 but contrary to it, there is specific provision under the proviso of Rules 175 of the said Rules that entire record will be preserved till the intimation is received from such higher courts about the decision of such appeals or revisions and till the period of limitation for filing further appeal or revision expires.
22. In support of the aforementioned explanation submitted by the then learned Addl. District Judge, an officer of the Registry of this Court has placed before me a Circular letter dated 26.2.1980 issued by the Registrar to all District and Sessions Judges stating therein that he had been directed to refer to this Court's Circular letter No. Gen./XV/104/78/12697 dated 10.11.1978 and to say that it has come to the notice of this Court that record of Sub-ordinate Courts are still being weeded out despite information to this effect having been sent to the Court concerned. The Court took a serious view of the matter and desired that immediate steps should be taken to stop the weeding out such records in future. The Registrar of this Court in his Circular letter dated 26.2.1980 requested to all District & Sessions Judges that as soon as intimation regarding admission of appeal sent by this Court is received in the court concerned immediate steps be taken to make a note on the top of the records of both the courts viz. lower appellate court and trial court not to weed out the record as appeal has been admitted before this Court.
23. The aforesaid contention in support of explanation submitted by the learned Addl. District Judge who decided the suit under appeal is not acceptable. Firstly the aforesaid Circular letter dated 26.2.80 issued by the Registrar based on Circular letter of this Court dated 10.11.78 is repealed by Rule 3 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 according to which, all previous Rules relating to the matters, which are provided in those Rules are abrogated. Admittedly, under the General Rules (Civil) 1986 matter relating to weed out records are given in detail in Rules 144, 145 and 175 of the said Rules. Thus, the aforesaid Circular letter stood abrogated from the date of enforcement of the aforesaid general Rules (Civil) 1986 with effect from 25.12.86 on which date the said Rules were published in Rajasthan Raj Patra Part IV (C)(I). Secondly, the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the General Rules (Civil) are statutory provisions framed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India and with the approval of Governor of Rajasthan for the guidance of the Civil Courts Sub- ordinate to it. Thus, the aforesaid Circular letter dated 26.2.80 issued by the Registrar of this Court in pursuance of Circular letter No. Gen/XV/104/78/12697 dated 10.11.78 issued by this Court, both became redundant from the date of enforcement of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 i.e. 25.12.86 being repugnant to the said statutory Rules.
24. It is brought to my notice that the Sub-ordinate Courts as well as (Officer of the Registry of this Court are treating these two Circular letters to be sacrosanct in preference to statutory General Rules (Civil), 1986 but in actual practice both the statutory Rules and Circular letter referred to above are being Flouted in weeding out records of Sub-ordinate Courts causing serious miscarriage of justice. The Sub-ordinate Courts are neither awaiting the intimation about decision of such statutory appeals and revisions pending before higher courts against their judgment and decree on the pretext that they have no information about pendency of such appeals or revisions before the higher courts nor office of this Court is issuing information about admission of such appeals and revisions before this Court on the pretext that till order of summoning of record is passed they are not required to send information to the sub-ordinate court about admission of such appeal and revision. According to the office of this Court, they used to inform the court by requisitioning the Civil Courts Record after order for summoning record is passed by the Court.
25. It is important to mention that the present first appeal was admitted by this Court on 13.2.79 and an order for summoning the record of trial court was passed on 19.4.79 while office of the court summoned the record of sub-ordinate court by sending requisition letter No. 3611 dated 8.6.88 after long interval of more than 8 years which was received by the Sub-ordinate Court on 13.6.88 and by that time, parts B, C and D of Civil Courts Record containing oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, were weeded out.
26. Learned Counsel for the respondent during the course of his argument gave a statement that in his four first appeals which are pending before this Court; records of the trial courts have been weeded out due to lack of communication gap between the office of this Court and the trial court. Several other counsel also put-forth their grievances regarding weeding out the record by the Sub-ordinate Courts while Civil Appeal and Revisions are pending against their judgment and decree before this Court. I have implicit faith on the statements made at the bar and close scrutiny of the facts of this case also leads towards the same irresistiable conclusion.
27. In order to remove doubt about the circular letters mentioned above, it is held that if any enactment is inconsistent to the Constitutional provision it is repugnant to the extent of its inconsistency to the Constitutional provisions. If statutory Rules framed under an enactment transgress the provisions of an enactment, it should always be treated to redundant and repugnant to the extent of its transgression to the provisions of the enactment. Similarly, if G.O. (Government Order) Circular letters, office memorandum and departmental instructions are found by a court if law to be inconsistent to the statutory Rules, such Government orders Circular letter, office memorandum and departmental instruction must be treated to be honest to the extent of inconsistency to the statutory Rules framed under an enactment. However, it is made clear that if staturoty Rules are silent on a particular subject it can always be supplemented by Government order, Circular letter, officer memorandum and departmental instruction.
28. In the instant case, the field of weeding out record of Sub-ordinate court is already occupied by the statutory Rules i.e. Raj. General Rules (Civil), 1986 therefore both Circular letters mentioned above have no application after enforcement of afore-mentioned statutory Rules.
29. Where Statutes or Rules are not ambiguous or Capable of two interpretations, it is hardly necessary to have recourse to rule of construction. In such cases, what a court has to do, is to see of those words and give effect to them regardless of the consequence that may ensue. If language is plain, the fact that the consequence of giving effect to proviso of Rule, 175 of the said Rules may lead to some in convenience to the Sub-ordinate Courts and officer-in-charge of the Record Room in Rajasthan to know about the pendency of the Civil Appeal or Revision in the higher courts, is not a factor to be taken into account in interpreting the said Rules. The Rule making authorities in this case may have unconsciously are without sufficient fore-sight may have framed these Rules, but if so, it must be left to the Rule making authorities to correct its error.
30. In my humble opinion, the courts have no power to defeat its plain intent of proviso of Rule 175 of the said Rules because of inconvenience to the Sub-ordinate Courts regarding information about the pendency of appeal or revision in the higher courts, which may or may not have been contemplated by the Rule making authority in the present case. According to me, the proviso of Rules 175 of the said rules will be applied according to the general intent of the Rule making authority which had framed these Rules for guidance of the Civil Courts Sub-ordinate to it. The intent of Rule making authority i.e. the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of ad hoc presumption of the Sub-ordinate Courts, especially, all the officer-in-charge of the Civil Courts' Record Room at District Head-quarters as well as out line courts of Districts. In my humble opinion, the law should be liberally interpreted, so that the intent of the rule making authority may be preserved. In the instant case, the intent of rule making authority and purpose under-lying the rule is apparent to the effect that invariably wherever the appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the decree or order of the Sub-ordinate Court is pending in the higher courts, the entire record shall be preserved till intimation is received from such higher courts about the decision of such appeal or revision or such proceedings and till the period of limitation for further appeal or revision expires.
31. Here in this case, I am concerned with the rationale of rule and policy of rule making authority, according to which, the entire record of the trial court must be preserved till intimation is received from such higher courts about the decision of such appeal or revision or such proceedings. In fact, there is no requirement in this proviso that the entire record will be weeded out if the Sub-ordinate courts or the officer-in-charge of the Civil Record Room is not informed about the pendency of such appeal or revision before the higher courts. As a matter of fact, the requirement of the proviso is that till intimation is received from such higher courts about such decision of the appeal or revision, the Sub-ordinate courts should not weed out the records of the Civil Courts where statutory appeals or revisions or other proceedings are contemplated.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Sub-ordinate Courts in Rajasthan and officer-in-charge of the Civil record Room are not justified to weed out the record of Parts B and C of Civil records of suits of Classes II and III after expiry of 6 years on the pretext that they have no information about the pendency of appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the judgment and decree passed by them irrespective of the fact that such appeal or revision or any other proceedings against their judgments and decrees are pending in the higher courts. Under proviso of Rule 175 of the said Rules, they are required to preserve the entire records till intimation is received from such higher courts about the decision of such appeal or revision or any other proceedings. I am further fortified in my view in interpreting the aforesaid proviso because the under-lying policy of rule making authority to preserve the entire records till decision of such appeal or revision or other proceedings are clear by stipulating that not only after intimation is received from such higher courts about the decision of such appeal or revision or any other proceedings is sufficient but even after such decision, the Sub-ordinate courts in Rajasthan are required to preserve the entire records till period of limitation for filings further appeal or revision expires.
33. In my humble opinion, the proviso of Rule 175 of the said Rules is not ambiguous and is also not capable of two interpretations, therefore weeding out of Parts B and C of Civil Records of Suits of Classes II and III after expiry of 6 years by the Sub-ordinate Courts in Rajasthan on the pretext that they have no information about the pendency of the appeal or revision is not acceptable in the eye of law for the reasons stated above.
34. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Geeta Devi and Ors. AIR 1983 All. 124, for the proposition that in such a situation, the record maybe remitted to the trial court and parties may be asked to reproduce the same witnesses for making the statements and documents may also be produced subject to cross-examination of each other's witnesses and also subject to adduce the evidence-in rebuttal by each party. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for he appellants. In my considered opinion, arguments of the learned Counsel is not acceptable, inasmuch as, several opportunities have been provided by this Court to the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent but their attempt to reconstruct the record has resulted into fiasco. The Stop order was passed by the Court on 11.5.93 even then reconstruction of record could not be made possible. Thus, remitting the record to the trial court for reconstruction of its record will not serve any useful purpose and such exercise would be an empty formality.
35. Decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Supra) is not applicable in the present case, inasmuch is, in the aforesaid decision, the record of the Tribunal was destroyed by accidental fire i.e. by act of God while in the instant case, by act and omission of the officer of the court. It is not possible to deduce from the aforesaid decision that at the High Court level, an attempt to reconstruct the record even after passing stop order had resulted into fiasco as in the present case. Even according to the aforesaid judgment in peculiar circumstances of the case, judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar can be set aside and the case can be remanded for de novo trial.
36. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case. I consider it proper to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. II/74-Firm Sohanlal Shiv Narain v. Bherudan and Ors. and remand the case to the trial court for de novo trial in the interest of justice and fair play. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the above observations. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
37. Before parting with the judgment, it is hereby directed that a copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar of this Court forthwith for necessary compliance of the following directions:
(A) A copy of this judgment may circulated and sent to all the District Sessions Judges and also to the officer-in-charge of the Civil Record Room of each District Head-quarters as well as the officer-in-charge of the Civil Record Room at out-line courts of each District accompanying with the directions that no Parts B and C of the Civil Records of Suits of classes II and III shall be weeded out after expiry of six years in those cases where statutory first appeal or revision or other proceedings are contemplated under the law till the receive intimation from such appellate or revisional courts about the decision of appeal or revision or such proceedings and further refrain to weed out the record to the period of limitation prescribed for filing further appeal or revision against such decision expires.
(B) Officers of this Court at Jodhpur and Jaipur Bench, both must be apprised of that in all Civil Appeals and Civil Revisions, the records of the trial court must be requisitioned within six weeks from the date of its admission by the court and the period of six weeks is to be computed from the date of admission of such Civil Appeals or Civil Revisions.
In my humble opinion, the General Rules (Civil), 1986 i.e. Rule 144 regarding division of records of judicial proceedings in Civil Courts, Rule 145-arrangement of Civil Records in four Parts A, B, C and D and Rule 175-preservation and destruction of records required immediate attention of this Court by amending the same to suit the prevailing circumstance in the higher courts where first appeals are being taken up for final hearing after expiry of 15 years due to paucity of judges of this Court upto sanctioned strength.
(C) A copy of this judgment may also be given to the Officer-on-Special duty (Rules) at Jodhpur for information.