THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:6312 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.09.2009, in I.A.(CFR).No.17272 of 2009 in O.S.No.610 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 CPC, was directed to be returned for being filed before proper authority as the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for eviction of the 1st defendant from the plaint schedule property, duly declaring that he is an encroacher. Defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. When the matter was coming up for trial, plaintiff filed I.A.No.914 of 2008 to send for the title deed, dated 14.07.2008, filed in O.S.No.554 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the said document was marked as Ex.B1. The said I.A.No.964 of 2008 was allowed on 12.11.2008 and a copy of the order was communicated to the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, seeking transmission of the document. It is stated that in spite of receiving number of reminders by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, the document has not been transmitted by the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge. It appears that the plaintiff has filed an application also seeking issuance of summons to the concerned person from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge to produce the document and the said application was allowed but even then the document was not produced. However, a reply was received to the summons to the effect that the document is missing from the record in O.S.No.554 of 1996 and official memo was issued to the concerned employees calling for explanation for non production of the document and explanation was found to be not acceptable and responsibility was fixed on the concerned employees for missing of the document. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present application-I.A.(CFR) No.17272 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the District Registrar to reconstruct and issue new original title deed at the cost of the employee concerned, who is responsible for the loss of the document. By the impugned order, the trial Court has returned the application to be presented before the concerned authority. 4. The present application is filed under Section 151 CPC but the relief prayed for therein is totally misconceived. It is open to the petitioner-plaintiff to seek permission of the Court to adduce secondary evidence by showing that the original could not be produced as the same was stated to be lost. According to the petitioner- plaintiff, as seen from the reply received from the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court on 05.09.2009, the said document marked as Ex.B1 in O.S.No.554 of 1996 was found missing from the said record and necessary action was also initiated against the concerned employees. When the document is said to have been lost from the custody of the Court, it is open to the petitioner- plaintiff to seek the permission of the Court to adduce secondary evidence under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the plaintiff has applied for certified copy of the reply, dated 05.09.2009, from the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, the same was not granted on the ground that it was administrative correspondence. 6. The said reply, dated 05.09.2009, which was sent by the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge in response to the summons issued by the Senior Civil Judge, now forms part of the record. Petitioner herein can seek the permission of the Court to place the said reply, dated 05.09.2009, on record as part of the evidence in the suit in support of his contention that the original document marked as Ex.B1 was found missing from the record of O.S.No.554 of 19986. Further, it is also open to the petitioner-plaintiff to send for the entire record of the suit- O.S.No.554 of 1996, which would disclose that the said document was referred as Ex.B.1 in the said suit and was also found to be missing. Thus, the factum of loss of the original document is borne out by the Court record itself. When that is so, plaintiff can always seek to adduce the secondary evidence. Instead of adopting the said procedure, the plaintiff has filed the present application seeking a direction to the District Registrar for reconstruction of the original record, which is misconceived. The trial Court has therefore rightly returned the application. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference. 7. The office is directed to mark a copy of this order to the learned 1 Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and also to the learned District Judge, Guntur, for taking necessary action against the concerned employees, who are responsible for the missing of the original document marked as Ex.B2 in O.S.No.554 of 1996. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the directions and observations as stated above. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 15th November, 2011. Tsy