1 (1) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.69/2007 (Ramlal Vs. Sardar Singh & others) (2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.10/2008 (Narayan Kumar & anr. Vs. Vishnu Lal) (3) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.18/2008 (Chhagan Lal Vs. LRs of Jodh Raj & ors.) (4) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 40/2008 (UCO Bank Vs. Sohan Lal)] DATED: 25th August 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI :::: These four Miscellaneous Applications, numbered 69/2007, 10/2008, 18/2008 and 40/2008, were filed for the purpose of reconstruction of missing case files; and though the case files pertaining to these matters have either been ordered to be reconstructed or have been traced out, these applications were not disposed of and were kept pending to examine the related aspects of the problem of missing case files; and, after taking into comprehension the scenario available, it appears appropriate that these matters be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. A brief reference to the facts available on record and to the related aspects, of course, appears apposite. 2 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.69/2007 was moved by the appellant in Civil Second Appeal No.443/2006 with the submissions, inter alia, that the matter was not listed on the date fixed and in the meantime, the execution proceedings were taken up and upon search, the concerning file was not traced out. On 10.10.2007, this Court took note of the problem not only concerning this case but that missing of case files had become a matter of recurrence; and made the following order:- ''Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is strange that the file is not traceable, and the record which was ordered to be requisitioned is attached with the file. According to the report, the file was sent to Peshi Section wherefrom it is not returned since 17.7.2007. Missing of the files has become a very rampant thing in the High Court, and this Court has been coming across number of instances like this. In such circumstances, it is directed that appropriate first information report be lodged, and the matter be pursued, and carried to logical conclusion. The out come be reported to this Court also. For this purpose matter is adjourned for four weeks. Meanwhile the appellant shall not be evicted.” When the said Misc. Application No. 69/2007 was again placed before the Court on 22.01.2008, it was noticed that the office dealt with the matter in a perfunctory and indifferent manner and by merely addressing a communication to the Station House Officer of the concerning Police Station, the 3 office treated its duties to be over. Specific directions of the Court that the matter be pursued and be carried to logical conclusion were found to have been ignored with impunity. This Court did not approve of the approach of the Registry and reports were called from the office and so also from the concerning Police Station. Upon this Court taking serious note of the things, up came the report from the office that the said missing file had been traced out. However, in the meantime, as this Court had found the management of movement of case files to be unsatisfactory and had asked for reports on corrective measures taken, the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) purportedly issued an order on 24.01.2008 that reads as under:- ''It has been noticed that judicial files are misplaced during the course of movement of judicial files from one section to another and even to courts. All Assistant Registrar Judicials are therefore required to direct the digit clerks of their concerned sections to maintain despatch registers and take the receipt of files from the concerning section so that check be imposed upon misplacing of judicial files during movement.” In relation to such kind of routine office order, upon calling for further reports, it has been noticed that the supposed registers are not maintained in relation to the movement of files to the Cause List Section and Peshi 4 Section, whereto and wherefrom the movement occurs to the maximum. However, on 28.05.2008, for the impending summer vacations, the matter was adjourned with directions to the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to ensure physical verification of the case files in Civil Section during vacations and then to obtain a comprehensive report and place the same before the Court with his comments. Thereafter, on 01.07.2008, The Dy. Registrar (Judicial) merely forwarded the reports stated by the concerning staff about number of files not found in physical verification and stated that search slips have been ordered to be issued. However, it was noticed that the situation was an alarming one with substantial number of case files said to be missing. To name a few, it was reported that 392 files of Civil Misc. Appeal cases were missing; 22 files of Civil Second Appeal cases were missing; 74 files of Civil First Appeal cases were missing; and 20 files of Civil Revisions were missing. Non-availability of a single case file is a serious matter and it is painful to notice that the problem has multiplied itself to a magnitude beyond comprehension. To deal with the matter further, the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) was directed to state a complete report with all particulars of 74 missing files of Civil First Appeal cases and so also to state specifically the corrective measures taken. 5 Then came the report from the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) drawn on 30.07.2008 stating that after checking afresh, 22 files pertaining to Civil First Appeal cases were missing and a list was annexed thereto stating the last known dates as fixed in such cases. It is rather strange to notice that some of the case files are said to be missing from the years 1997 and 1998 and even a fresh file supposed to be listed on 16.07.2008 was also missing. The matter was again adjourned on 05.08.2008 with directions to submit latest report concerning such 22 files and efforts were directed to be made to trace the movements of such files particularly from Cause List Section and Peshi Section. The Dy. Registrar (Judicial) has placed on record another report dated 08.08.2008 wherein it is stated that now 21 files are missing as one missing file has been found. It is also pointed out that Cause List Section and Peshi Section have stated in their reports that none of such missing files were pending with them. The directions of the Court were to trace the movement of the files that have been sought to be met merely by obtaining reports in a perfunctory manner from the Sections. It is surprising to note that only of Civil First Appeal cases, 21 case files are still missing; and it is not known as to what has happened in the other Sections. 6 In the meantime, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.10/2008 was placed before the Court stating the grievance that the case file of CFA No. 76/1989 was missing and it was noticed that in the said matter too, earlier the Court had passed repeated orders to make efforts to trace the case file. For it being not traceable, the file was ordered to be reconstructed on the basis of the papers supplied by the counsel. Yet further, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.18/2008 came up for consideration on the grievance that the case files of S. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 01/2006 and S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 142/1997 were missing. In the said matter also the Court had noted seriousness of the problem and even noted that reports were made by the clerk concerned in a cryptic manner without stating his name and with illegible signatures. Then came the report in the said case on 01.08.2008 that concerning record had been traced out and it was pointed out the files were kept alongwith a file of inquiry pending in pursuance of order of the Court dated 19.01.2006 as passed in S.B. Civil Restoration No. 31/2005. On the other hand, in this very file of Misc. Application No. 18/2008, the noting are available where the staff concerned reported on 08.06.2007 that the said (untraceable) files were sent to the cause list section on 21.07.2006 and were not received back; 7 and even search slip was ordered to be issued on 11.08.2007 to trace the files. S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.40/2008 came up before the Court on 08.08.2008 and it was further surprising to notice that the file of a fresh case, being CFA No.275/2008, was also not traceable. In view of the urgency shown, the file of the said CFA No.275/2008 was ordered to be reconstructed with the papers supplied by the counsel. In these matters, different Benches of this Court have expressed concern over the problem and dissatisfaction over the dealings by the office. Needless it is to say that the scenario aforesaid calls for immediate corrective measures where not only the movement of case files is regulated but also where unauthorized entries in the office and access to the case files are curtailed and where answerability, in manner and effect, towards the case files comes into being. The office order as issued by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) on 24.01.2008 with purported directions to the concerning staff to maintain dispatch registers seems to be rather of an empty formality particularly when it is found that no such dispatch registers are maintained in relation to Cause List Section and Peshi Section, whereto and wherefrom the movement of the files is to the maximum. 8 Efforts are also needed not only to trace out the missing files but if not found traceable at all, to reconstruct the records after notice to the concerning parties. Looking to all the facts and circumstances aforesaid, it appears appropriate that these matters be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Ordered accordingly. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK 9 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.10/2008 (Narayan Kumar & anr. Vs. Vishnu Lal) DATED: 25th August 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI :::: Vide common order made in S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.69/2007 (Ramlal Vs. Sardar Singh & others). (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK 10 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 18/2008 (Chhagan Lal Vs. LRs of Jodh Raj & ors.) DATED: 25th August 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI :::: Vide common order made in S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.69/2007 (Ramlal Vs. Sardar Singh & others). (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK 11 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.40/2008 (UCO Bank Vs. Sohan Lal) DATED: 25th August 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI :::: Vide common order made in S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.69/2007 (Ramlal Vs. Sardar Singh & others). (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK