THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.5822 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 09.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.2449 of 2009 in O.P.No.189 of 2005 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Brief facts of the case are that the paternal grandfather of the respondent herein filed O.P.No.189 of 2005 before the Court below, seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property standing in the name of the respondent, his minor grandson. By virtue of the permission granted by the Court below on 25.11.2005, the paternal grandfather of the respondent herein sold the petition schedule property to the petitioner herein, under registered sale deed dated 25.01.2006, and the O.P. was accordingly closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present I.A. before the Court below, seeking to return the link documents pertaining to the petition schedule property namely title deed, pattadar passbook and sale deed dated 24.02.1995 standing in the name of the respondent, which were filed by the paternal grandfather of the respondent and marked as Exs.A1 to A3 in the O.P. In view of the submission made by the petitioner that the matter may be decided without ordering notice to other side, the trial Court did not issue notice to the respondent, but however, dismissed the petition, by the impugned order dated 09.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. When the matter came up for consideration on 01.02.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner attempted to serve notice on the respondent, but he could not succeed, as the respondent left his place of residence. In view of the said submission, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on the respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due and also by way of substituted service, by publishing the notice in the local newspaper having circulation in Tirupathi, where the respondent is stated to be residing. Accordingly, the leaned counsel for the petitioner caused publication of notice in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, Tirupathi Edition of Chittoor District, and filed memo of proof of publication before the Court. However, none appeared for the respondent when the matter was called on 26.02.2010 and, therefore, this Court, while adjourning the matter, directed the name of the respondent to be printed in the cause list. In spite of the name of the respondent being printed in the cause list, none appeared for the respondent on the subsequent dates of hearing and even today and there is no representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Petitioner claims to have purchased the petition schedule property standing in the name of the respondent and he seeks return of the link documents pertaining to the subject property, lying in the record of O.P. In spite of publication of notice, respondent did not turn up before this Court. Since the documents in question remained unclaimed by the respondent for return, they will be maintained in the record of the Court below for sometime and later destroyed in natural course, as per rules. The petitioner being the purchaser of the subject property and the documents being the link documents thereof, which remained unclaimed by the party who filed it, I am of the considered opinion that, instead of allowing the documents to be destroyed in natural course, it is appropriate to return them to the petitioner, who has interest in the subject property. In that view of the matter, the order under revision is set aside and the Court below is directed to return the documents in question to the petitioner, after obtaining an undertaking from him to the effect that he will produce the documents as and when required. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 1st June, 2010 IBL