HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P. No. 670 of 2010 DATED: 15.07.2011 Between: Shaik Shabbir .. Petitioner And Puvvada Ramadevi and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Notice dated 11.02.2010 issued in O.S. No. 66 of 2007 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali directing the Advocates appearing for the 1st defendant and the plaintiff to co-operate in the reconstruction of the case record by furnishing certified copies of documents and other necessary documents to the other side before filing them into the Court. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 66 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent herein – plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,71,042/- on the foot of the promissory note executed by the defendants. It is stated that the suit was filed in the year 2007 in which the petitioner-1st defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. It is further stated that pending suit, the 1st defendant filed an application for sending promissory note for expert’s opinion and while the application was pending, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali issued the impugned Notice dated 11.02.2010 which reads as follows: “In obedience to the proceedings of the Hon’ble District Judge, Guntur, dated 20.01.2010 in Dis.No.609, dated 20.01.2010 regarding O.S. No. 66 of 2007 of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, you are hereby directed to co-operate in constructing the case record, and you have to furnish certified copies of documents, and also other necessary documents by giving copies of documents to the other side before filing them into Court. The matter is posted to 15.02.2010” Aggrieved by this Notice, the 1st defendant has filed the Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the Notice under revision. From a perusal of the Notice, it appears that the case bundle has been misplaced or not traced out, therefore the learned District Judge, Guntur permitted reconstruction of the case record, and accordingly, Notice was given to the Advocates appearing for the plaintiff and the defendants before the trial Court, requesting for their co-operation in the reconstruction of the case record. It is the case of the petitioner-1st defendant that the petitioner was not at all put on Notice as to whether the case bundle was misplaced, and if misplaced, the reasons why it has not been traced out. It is stated that the decision for reconstruction of the case cannot be taken without issuing notice and without hearing the petitioner-1st defendant. It is stated that as there is no judicial order permitting reconstruction of the case bundle, the impugned Notice is liable to be set aside. Hence, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, however as it is specifically stated that decision for reconstruction of the case bundle is taken behind the back of the petitioner-1st defendant and without issuing notice to him, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned Notice dated 11.02.2010 issued in O.S. No. 66 of 2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali directing him to issue a notice to all the parties to the suit and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 15.07.2011 bcj