IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.24874 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sri Venkateswara Finance Corporation, Tanuku, reptd., by its Managing Partner-Sri K.Amruth Krishna Swaroop. … Petitioner And The District Court, West Godavari, reptd., by its Administrative Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Simhadri. Counsel for the respondents: None This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in returning Exs.A.1 to A.184 in O.S.No.75 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to return the said documents. I have heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that it is a finance firm, which has lent amounts to two persons, by name, Sri Mullapudi Narayana Rao and Sri Mullapudi Nagaratnam, of Tanuku; that as the said two persons committed default in payment of the due amounts, the Managing Partner of the petitioner-firm filed O.S.Nos.75 and 76 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru; that the said Court passed a preliminary decree for Rs.8,50,000/- with subsequent interest at the contract rate of 21% per annum; that during the course of trial of the said suits, the plaintiff marked Exs.A.1 to A.184; that being aggrieved by a part of the said decree, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.2813 of 2004 in this Court and the defendants filed their cross-objections; that as the matter was settled between the parties, the appeal and the cross- objections were withdrawn under order dated 8-12-2006 passed by this Court; and that on the petitioner approaching the registry of this Court, the Joint Registrar of this Court endorsed on 29-10-2007 as “verify and dispatch the lower court records immediately”. The petitioner averred that it has come to its notice that after disposal of the suit, the entire record was sent to this Court, for reference in the appeal, through respondent No.2-Courier service on 8-9-2004, but it has not reached the destination. The petitioner, therefore, filed this Writ Petition. This Court, at the admission stage, directed the Registry to address a letter to respondent No.1 calling for a report on the availability of the said documents. Respondent No.1 sent a report, dated 30-11-2009, wherein it is stated that the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.184 were sent to this Court in connection with A.S.No.2813 of 2004; and that his enquiries with respondent No.2 revealed that the information regarding the parcel was not available. After receipt of the said report, this Court passed an order on 4-12-2009 directing the registry to call for a report from the District Judge, Eluru, as to whether xerox copies of the documents marked in the suit are available or not. On 18-12-2009 respondent No.1 sent a report informing that xerox copies are not available. At the hearing, Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, lamented that for no fault on the part of his client, it is put to sufferance. He further stated that Ex.A.3, dated 24-8-1977, belongs to the defendant in the suit, which was handed over to his client in connection with the money transaction; and that the petitioner is liable to return the said document to the defendant. He further submitted that his client has obtained certified copy of the said document from the Sub-Registrar concerned and that respondent No.1 may be directed to certify that the said document was marked as Ex.A.3 in the suit. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the said request of the learned counsel is reasonable. Being the person entrusted with the document of the defendant, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to return the document to its legal custodian. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since xerox copy of the judgment is available with him, it is not difficult for respondent No.1 to examine the contents of the document in question (Ex.A.3) with reference to the contents of the judgment. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to examine the contents of the certified copy of document dated 24-8-1977 with reference to the contents of the judgment in O.S.No.75 of 1998 on the file of II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, and on satisfying himself that the contents of the said certified copy of document are same to the original document marked as Ex.A.3, he shall certify the same to that effect. To enable him to do so, the petitioner is permitted to file a certified copy of the said document with respondent No.1 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of the document, respondent No.1 shall examine it and do the needful within a period of one week thereafter. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner is not-pressing the Writ Petition in respect of the other documents. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-3-2010 MNR