HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.2266 of 2009 DATE: 15-3-2010 Between: Simma Vasudeva Rao … Petitioner And Vysyaraju Venkataramana Raju …. Respondent HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.2266 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed against the docket order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in E.P.No.134 of 2008 in O.S.No.61 of 2002. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.1.2010 whereby the Principal District Jude, Srikakulam was requested to personally cause enquiry into which of the two orders dated 6.3.2009 was genuine, the Learned District Judge submitted his report dated 17.2.2010. In his report, the Learned District Judge has observed that while the original docket order dated 6.3.2009 read as under: “Sale notice to J.Dr. served personally, J.Dr. called absent, no representation, for settlement of terms call on 16.3.2009” the docket order later produced before this Court by Sri K.Subrahmanyam, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, reads as under: “Sale notice to J.Dr. not yet returned, J.Dr. called absent. No representation, for settlement of terms call on 16.3.2009” The Learned District Judge states that the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam who passed the impugned order on 6.3.2009 was no more and he expired on 23.8.2009; the copy of the order dated 6.3.2009 filed by Sri P.Krishna Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent vide memo dated 8.12.2009 was genuine and the certified copy of the order filed by Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner vide memo No.65 dated 27.1.2010 was not genuine as it was a certified copy of the tampered order dated 6.3.2009. If the original docket order dated 6.3.2009 which records “sale notice to J.Dr. served personally……” was erroneous, and the petitioner was of the view that notice had not been served on him, the remedy available to him was either to file a petition to set aside the order dated 6.3.2009 or to question the said order by way of a revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner chose not to take recourse to any of these measures and the order dated 6.3.2009 remains unchallenged. Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of C.R.P.M.P:.No.3166 of 2009 wherein the petitioner stated that he had filed E.A.___of 2009 in E.P.No.134 of 2008 in I.A.No.478 of 2005 in O.S.No.61 of 2002 seeking to set aside the order dated 16.3.2009 of publication for proclamation of sale so as to enable him to contest the above matter to meet the ends of justice; the said un-numbered E.A. filed by the petitioner on 20.4.2009 was not disposed of and no orders were passed on it or was rejected, but the Court had taken action illegally. Learned counsel would rely on this document in support of his contention that an application had indeed been filed to set aside the order of the Court below dated 6.3.2009. Learned counsel would emphasize that, despite the said application having been filed, the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge had not received the application. On being asked as to whether a copy of the said application was available with him, Sri K.Subrahmanyam passed on a copy thereof across the Bar. A perusal of the un-numbered E.A. would reveal that what was under challenge therein was not the order dated 6.3.2009 but a copy of the order, of publication or proclamation of sale, dated 16.3.2009. It is necessary to note that on 6.3.2009 the matter was adjourned to 16.3.2009 for settlement of terms and, on 16.3.2009, the Court directed proclamation of sale on 21.4.2009 and for publication in Eenadu Telugu daily. It is evident, therefore, that the order dated 6.3.2009 was not under challenge in the unnumbered E.A. The presumption is that the Court proceedings, as reflected in the order of the Court, is correct and since the Court below noted that the notice was served, it is not open to the petitioner to go beyond the order and contend otherwise till the said order is set aside. The only ground on which the subsequent proclamation and sale are under challenge is on the ground that the petitioner was not give notice and, as the said order dated 6.3.2009 has not been subjected to challenge and this Court is required to presume that notice was, indeed, served (as per the report of the District Judge by affixure), the subsequent proceedings cannot be faulted. What is,however, of serious concern is that the Court order dated 6.3.2009 has been tampered with. While Sri K.Subrahmanyam Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would deny that the petitioner had any role to play in the document being tampered, it is not in dispute that the docket order of the Court dated 6.3.2009 has, indeed, been tampered with. It is imperative that action be taken against those responsible for tampering with Court records, if necessary, by having them prosecuted. The Learned District Judge, Srikakulam shall cause further enquiry, identify as to which officer/employee of the Court was responsible for the docket order being tampered; whether the petitioner herein had any role to play in the tampering of the record; and, thereafter, initiate appropriate disciplinary/criminal proceedings against those responsible for tampering of the records. In any view of the matter the docket order dated 6.3.2009 (which records that “Sale notice to JDr. Served personally….”) is said to be the genuine order and, in the absence of a challenge thereto and its being set aside, all subsequent proceedings must be held to be valid. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________ 15-3-2010 asp