Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Ismil Khan vs State And Ors. on 4 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)MPHT401
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
ORDER J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Heard.
2. Shri Kutumbale submitted that once the execution proceeding has been filed and that has been made over to Collector to effect the partition, Civil Court becomes functus officio and therefore, Civil Judge Class I, Dhar did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order which has been passed by him on 3-1-2000. Shri Khan submitted that the documents were lost, the file was lost, it was not traceable and in view of that new execution application has been filed by opponent No. 1. He submitted that if at all the revision-petitioner was aggrieved of the action taken by the learned Civil Judge Class I, Dhar he should have challenged the order which was passed by that Court on 3-1-2000. He submitted that in view of the said circumstances, the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and it be dismissed.
3. Mrs. Chaphekar submitted that the State is a formal party and did not make any submission.
4. After reading the order which has been passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Dhar it is quite clear that the file of previous execution proceeding has been lost and in spite of strenuous efforts by the Court and its officers the said file could not be traced out. The parties were asked to produce the documents for reconstruction of the record. It appears from the tone of order that some of the documents only were in possession of the parties and so far as other documents were concerned, the parties concerned, were unable to produce them. It also appears from the said order that one Smt. Pushpa Pawar, who was the Reader of the Court at the relevant time has been taken to task by the Court for the act of loosing the file.
5. It is revealed by the said order which has been passed on 3-1-2000 that the Court has come to a conclusion that as the said file has been missing and some of the documents cannot be produced by the parties concerned, in the circumstances the decree-holder Antarsingh was entitled to file the execution proceeding by submitting necessary application afresh.
6. By the order which is put to challenge by this Revision Petition dated 2-3-2000, the Executing Court has asked the Collector to take appropriate action in view of the judgment which has been passed by Civil Judge Class I, Dhar in the matter of Civil Suit No. 22-A/77, Civil Appeal No: I-A/79 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of S.A. No. 497/81.
7. When the proceeding is lost, the documents are lost, normally the Court starts for reconstruction of the record so as to move further for the purpose of granting relief to aggrieved parties or the parties approaching the Court. In that process the Court generally follows the rule of prudence of accepting the documents or reconstruction of the record with concurrence of parties in litigation. In case of document which purports to be produced on record, the Court will have to consider the opposition expressed, if any, by one of the contesting parties. After hearing the objection, the Court should take a decision whether such document is to be admitted on record or not. If all the documents are produced but even then some documents are necessary, for Court to take appropriate action for the purpose of administration of justice, the Court is entitled to take a decision which is best in the interest of justice. No party can have the grievance to that action taken by the Court and the parties at litigation have to follow the decision of the Court for reconstruction of such lost file or the record. In the present case, after giving sufficient opportunity to parties at litigation the Court has come to a conclusion that with the available record it was necessary to ask the Collector to act in accordance with law for the purpose of implementing the decree which has been put to execution and accordingly the Court has asked the Collector to take the appropriate action in view of the judgments passed by Civil Judge Class I, Dhar, District Judge, Dhar and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matters referred to above. This Court does not find that Court has committed any error whatsoever. If the record of the previous execution proceeding is lost and parties are not in a position to produce sufficient documents for enabling the Court to consider the submissions, there is no alternative but to act further as it has been done by the Civil Judge Class I, Dhar by passing the order which has been assailed by this Revision Petition.
8. Thus, the petition stands dismissed as substanceless.