IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMEBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1113 OF 2009 BETWEEN Surla Jaggunaidu. …PETITIONER AND Surla Chinnammalu and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. M. ADINARAYANA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.S.R. SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: - ORDER: The first defendant in O.S.No.74 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam seeks to revise the order of the Court below dated 02.01.2009 dismissing I.A.No.679 of 2006 filed by the petitioner. 2. In the aforesaid suit, said to have been filed for maintenance past and future by the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant has taken a plea that the aspect of maintenance was already compromised between the parties by recording a compromise in M.C.No.24 of 1991 earlier filed by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, wanted to file a certified copy of the said compromise but the application for certified copy was returned with an endorsement by the clerk of the said Court that the records are destroyed. Thereafter, the present application was filed by the petitioner requesting the Court below to call for the destruction notification under which part II in M.C.No.24 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, was destroyed. Apparently, the said notification was sought to be called for only to establish the destruction of records. The Court below, however, rejected the said application by observing that the endorsement of the concerned clerk in the copy application, that the record is destroyed, is itself sufficient to presume the destruction. 3. After hearing both the learned counsel and after perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that the present application moved by the petitioner is unnecessary; as the Court below itself has observed that the endorsement of the clerk on the certified copy application that the record is destroyed is sufficient. Since the presumption of destruction can be drawn on the basis of the said endorsement no purpose would be served by seeking destruction notification to be called for and even if such notification is called for it will only establish that the record was destroyed. Since that aspect can be presumed from the endorsement of the concerned clerk, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 15, 2010 DSK