Civil Revision No. 5295 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5295 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : November 25, 2010 Mandir Shri Kaliji ....Petitioner versus Parveen Kumar and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 21273.CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No. 5295 of 2010 Decree holder Mandir Shri Kaliji has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 27.5.2010, Annexure P/1 passed by the executing court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal thereby dismissing application of the petitioner for reconstruction of the missing judicial file. Execution petition filed by the petitioner-decree holder is pending in the executing court. Objections have been filed therein by respondents no. 2 and 3 herein. The objectors have produced copy of Civil Revision No. 5295 of 2010 (O&M) -2- judgment dated 3.4.1950 of civil suit no. 32 of 1948 in support of their objections. The petitioner contended that no file of any such civil suit could be traced in the record room of the Deputy Commissioner inspite of best efforts. Accordingly, the petitioner moved application for reconstruction of the said missing file. The said application has been dismissed by learned executing court vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the decree holder has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on various judgments namely U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Luchknow versus Smt. Geeta Devi and others, AIR 1983 Allahabad 124; Amar Nath versus Sunder Lal and others, 1967 Cur. L.J. 781; N.K.Nair and another versus Kavanugal Aanattu Radhika, 2005(1) Supreme Court Cases 439; Marakkarutti and others versus Veeran Kutty and others, AIR 1923 Madras 647 and Gopalkrishnan versus Cochin Devaswom Board, 2008 (1) Apex Court Judgments 48 contended that it is the duty of the Judge to reconstruct the missing file. The contention is misconceived. There is no dispute with the preposition of law that it is the duty of the concerned Judge or court to reconstruct the missing judicial file. However, the question to be determined in the instant case is as to which court is to reconstruct the missing file. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the execution petition in which the impugned order has been passed does not pertain to execution of judgment and decree passed in the missing suit file. Consequently, the question would arise as to whether the Civil Revision No. 5295 of 2010 (O&M) -3- executing court would be competent to reconstruct the suit file which is allegedly missing. Answer to this question has to be in the negative. Suit file can be reconstructed by the court in which the suit is pending or by the appellate court or revisional court or by the court which decided the case or its successor court. Any and every court cannot proceed with reconstruction of any and every missing file. It is not the case of the petitioner that executing court is the successor court of the court which decided the suit of which the file is missing. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate court for reconstruction of the allegedly missing file, if so advised. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 25, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'