VBC 1 chs835-23.8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.835 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO.128 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.36 OF 1969 The State of Madhya Pradesh. ...Appellant. Vs. Premabai Mathradas Goculdas & Ors. ...Respondents. .... WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.836 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO.124 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.36 OF 1969 The Provident Investment Co.Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. Premabai Mathradas Goculdas & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr.Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney General of India with Mr.Rajesh Bindra, Mr.Vivek Tankha, Sr.Advocate, ASG Mr.Pravin D.Patel Mr.Arjun D.Nagarjun, Mr.B.K.Satija & Mr.M.Jay for the Appellant in Appeal No.128 of 2010 and Defedasnt No.1 in Suit No.36 of 1969. Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Pooja Patil, Mr.Sandeep Aole and Mr.B.V.J.Chaudhary i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 15. Mr.S.R.Rajguru with Mr.Ashok Verma for Respondent No.16. Ms.Sawmya Srikrishna wih Mr.Mahendra Kane i/b. Amarchand & Mangaldas & A.Shroff & Co. for Respondent Nos.18 and 19. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & R. V. MORE, JJ. August 23, 2010. VBC 2 chs835-23.8 P.C. : 1. These Chamber Summons have been taken out by the First and Third Defendants for extension of time to carry out inspection of the record as envisaged in the order passed by this Court on 9 April 2010. The circumstances in which a time schedule was set out for the completion of inspection has been adverted to in the order of this Court and do not require reiteration. The suit is of 1969. The apprehension of the Defendants who are respectively a company owned and controlled by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh is that the suit may not, as a matter of fact, be pending on the file of the Court. The original record pertaining to the suit is not traceable in the Registry on the Original Side. A list of pending suits prepared by the Registry in 2008 does not show the suit to be pending. 2. By the order of this Court dated 9 April 2010, a time schedule was fixed, with the consent of parties, for permitting inspection of the original records. Inspection was to be taken of (i) the Minute Books which contain orders passed by Judges of this Court assigned with the work of hearing Long Cause Suits; and of VBC 3 chs835-23.8 (ii) the Suit Register pertaining to the suit in question. From the correspondence which has been placed on the record of these proceedings, it is evident that full inspection of all the Minute Books has not been made available by the Registry. On 26 May 2010, the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master addressed a letter to the Advocate for the First Defendant recording that inspection would be permitted to be carried out on 3 June 2010 of the Suit Register and the Minute Books. The Plaintiff’s Advocate by a letter dated 8 June 2010 recorded that it was decided that on 4 June 2010 a search of the ‘disposal Suit Register’ would be carried out in the Board Department and a search of the Minute Books will be carried out in the Court office situated at the G.T. Hospital premises where the records are kept. The Plaintiff’s Advocate recorded that thereafter the search was adjourned. It has also been recorded that no search/inspection of the documents was carried out on 8 June 2010 because the Department could not provide the relevant Suit Registers. 3. Hence, from the material before the Court, it is clear that full inspection of the Minute Books containing orders passed by the VBC 4 chs835-23.8 Learned Trial Judges assigned with the work of Long Cause Suits has not been provided by the Registry. We are of the view that the interests of justice require that all the parties and above all, the Learned Trial Judge who is hearing the suit must be satisfied that the suit continues to remain pending on the file of the Court, particularly having regard to the fact that the original records of the suit of 1969 are untraceable. Directing that the trial should take place on a reconstructed plaint and written statement without a proper verification of whether the suit continues to remain on the file would be unsafe. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs relied upon correspondence prior to the passing of the previous order by this Court dated 9 April 2010 in support of the contention that full inspection has been taken. Reliance on the correspondence prior to the passing of the previous order would not carry the case any further. Eventually it was as a result of the facts placed before the Court which showed that full inspection had not been afforded that the previous order was passed. There has been no material change since then in the position that inspection has not been VBC 5 chs835-23.8 granted in the Original Side Registry. 5. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench in Sunil Mehra vs. Rajinder Singh Gulati, 2008(1) Bom.C.R. 359. The Division Bench in that case was dealing with a situation where under a consent decree, time for payment of the decretal amount by instalments was fixed. The Division Bench held that once a consent decree has been passed and instalments have been agreed upon, it is only with the consent of the decree-holder that the schedule of instalments can be varied. Obviously, this can have no application to a situation such as in the present case where the issue that arises before the Court is as to whether the suit should proceed to trial. This would depend on the question whether the suit continues to remain pending on the file of this Court. In order to determine this the records and registers have to be scrutinized. 6. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate and proper to allow the two Chamber Summons and to extend time for completing inspection of the Minute Books pertaining to orders VBC 6 chs835-23.8 passed by Judges of this Court, assigned with the work of hearing Long Cause Suits from 1977 until 2008. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to prepare, through an officer in her Department, a list of the Judges who were assigned with the work of hearing Long Cause Suits since 1977 until 2008. This exercise shall be completed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master within a period of two weeks from today and the list shall be furnished to the respective Advocates for the parties. The Advocates appearing on behalf of the First and Third Defendants will be at liberty to take inspection of the Minute Books maintained in relation to the aforesaid work. Inspection shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted that the hearing of the suit should not be stayed and that the trial may proceed. It was urged that since the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time, the process of inspection can continue during the progress of the trial. We are of the view that it would not be appropriate and proper in the interests of justice to allow the trial to proceed when the basic issue as to whether the suit VBC 7 chs835-23.8 continues to remain pending on the file of this Court is still to be resolved. This assumes some significance because of the circumstance that in the suit of 1969 the entire original record is untraceable. The Plaintiffs themselves do not appear to have taken steps to prosecute the suit until 2008. In the suit register of 1969, the page relating to the suit in question, the Court is informed by Counsel, has been torn away. 8. Hence, the stay that was granted by the order of this Court dated 9 April 2010 of further proceedings in the suit is extended until 6 December 2010. The suit shall be listed for directions before the Learned Single Judge on 6 December 2010. The Chamber Summons are accordingly disposed of. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( R.V. More, J.)