- (1.) MR . S.S. Dwedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellate court has dismissed the appeal, in the absence of the exhibits, on saying that the plaintiff -appellant withdrew their documents filed before the trial court and the same were not returned on repeated directions of the court and only the certified copy of the lease deed was refiled by the plaintiff - appellant. He further submitted that the record from the trial court was received after about 14 years. Referring to I.A. No. 859 of 2006, he submitted that a petition was filed on 3.9.1990 for taking back the lease deed (Ext. 13). Such prayer was allowed on 3.9.1990 by the learned trial court, and accordingly the lease deed was taken back. It was refilled as per the order and therefore, it is an error of record that the appellant took back all the exhibits and only filed the certified copy of Ext. 13.
(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed to this inter locutory application (I.A. No. 859 of 2006). However, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, referring to the list of documents, submitted that the appellant took back all the exhibits and refiled only Ext. 13 and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the finding of the lower appellate court. The following things are not clear. What steps were taken by the appellant, if the lower court records were not received for 14 years; when only Ext. 13 was taken back and then refiled, what steps the appellant took, when the court repeatedly asked it to refile the exhibits; what steps were taken by the appellant for search/enquiry/reconstruction of records; how the exhibits disappeared from the records, and who was responsible in such a serious matter, why the appellant is not pursuing the case with due diligence; whether the respondent no. 1 is responsible for all this? On this, Mr. Dwedi submitted that the parties may be allowed to reconstruct the records in the interest of justice. In the circumstances noticed above, I am inclined to given one chance to the appellant.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1990 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court. The appellant will take steps for reconstruction of records in which the respondents will cooperate. As the appeal is of the year 1990, the parties are further directed to cooperate in early disposal of the appeal, which should be disposed off preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, this order will be subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 5000/ - in the lower appellate court which the respondent no. 1 will be entitled to withdraw. A sum of Rs. 20,000/ - will also be deposited in the Advocate's Association Welfare Fund, High Court, Ranchi. These amounts should be deposited within four weeks from today.;