- (1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanbad in Title Suit No.10 of 1996 whereby the court below rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff on 21.03.2014 to direct the Judge-in-Charge-cumRegistrar of Civil Court to trace out the documents filed by the present plaintiff in Title Suit No.10 of 1996 or in alternative direct the party to reconstruct the record to enable the petitioner to use those documents as evidence in the subsequent Title Suit No.34 of 1999 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhanbad.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this writ application, in short, is that the petitioner which a public limited company, had preferred one Title Suit No.10 of 1996 for declaration that defendant no.1 is not entitled to invoke the bank guarantees for Rs.9,20,000/- and 35,58,300/- issued by defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively and also for restraining the defendant no.1, its employees or agents from invoking the three bank guarantees issued by defendant nos.2 and 3 and further restraining defendant nos.2 and 3 from making any payment to defendant no.1 under the bank guarantees. During pendency of the said suit, an order of temporary injunction was granted but subsequently the said order was revoked and the present respondent-BCCL encashed the bank guarantees which necessitated the filing of another Title Suit No.34 of 1999 for recovery of amount of Rs.1,88,69,894.93/-. After appearance of the respondent in the subsequent suit, they filed the written statement and at the time of leading evidence, some documents were required by the plaintiff-petitioner which were filed in the earlier title suit no.10 of 1996. The petitioner requested the Registry of the court in writing to make available the certified copies of the documents which were filed in the earlier suit. A list of documents was also enclosed with the said request letter but the Registry informed the petitioner in writing that those documents in the list are not traceable. Thereafter, the petitioner on 24.03.2014 filed a petition in the court concerned to direct the Registry to trace the documents or in alternative permit the parties to reconstruct the file so that the plaintiff be in a position to file those documents in court and lead secondary evidence in the absence of the primary evidence.
(3.) The defendant-respondents filed a rejoinder to the said petition alleging that the said petition is misconceived and not in accordance with law and in fact the plaintiff had filed xerox copy of the documents in the earlier suit which are not admissible in evidence and none of those documents were original and that the courts and its officials cannot be blamed for misplacing the documents. The said application was dismissed by the court below by order dated 11.05.2015 which was challenged by the present petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2286 of 2015 and after hearing both the parties, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2015 set aside the order of the court below dated 11.05.2015 and remitted the matter to the trial judge for deciding the application dated 24..03.2014 afresh.;