The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed a fact-finding inquiry into the disappearance of a document from a judicial file in a civil case pending in Ludhiana. Justice Harsh Bunger ordered the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to conduct the inquiry and fix responsibility on the officials concerned. The order came while dismissing a revision petition against a trial court order that permitted the plaintiff to prove the missing document through secondary evidence or by producing the original.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a recovery suit filed by a gurdwara against its former office-bearer for over Rs 32 lakh. According to the plaint, a three-member committee constituted by the gurdwara had submitted a report that allegedly revealed large-scale embezzlement of funds, leading to the suit. During the trial, the gurdwara moved an application seeking directions to the civil ahlmad to trace the three-member committee report, after it was found missing from the judicial file.
The trial court disposed of the application by granting liberty to the plaintiff to prove the document through secondary evidence or by producing the original, while also directing that the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, be informed about the loss of the document from the judicial file.
High Court's Observations
Justice Bunger observed that the trial court had committed no error in allowing the petitioner to prove the disputed document through secondary evidence or by producing the original. However, the Bench noted that a separate issue remained regarding the disappearance of the photocopy retained on the judicial file after the original had been seen and returned. "It would still be a matter of concern as to why the photocopy of the said document is missing from the record," the Bench observed.
Ordering an inquiry, Justice Bunger directed: "The lapse is required to be inquired into. Therefore, let a fact-finding inquiry be got conducted by the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, so as to fix the responsibility of the official(s) responsible as regards the missing document and submit a report to the Registrar-General of this court within three months." The order’s copy was directed to be forwarded to the Administrative Judge of Ludhiana district.
Efforts to Reconstruct the Missing Exhibit
During the revision proceedings, the High Court sought reports regarding efforts to trace and reconstruct the missing exhibit. The reconstruction exercise included recording statements of the then ahlmad, previous and present ahlmads, the plaintiff's representative, previous counsel, the local commissioner and other concerned persons.
The District and Sessions Judge forwarded the report dated May 29 submitted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. Among other things, the report recorded that the plaintiff had tendered 194 documents during evidence, all as photocopies, with the originals having been seen by the court and returned. It, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff's stand that the original of the lost document itself had been exhibited appeared "highly improbable".
The report further recorded that the plaintiff's previous counsel as well as the local commissioner had categorically stated that the original report had been produced in court, compared with the photocopy tendered in evidence and returned to the plaintiff. However, despite those statements and a specific query from the court, the plaintiff failed to produce either the original report or even a photocopy. The committee members, whose report was allegedly exhibited, also expressed their inability to produce any copy.
It was added that despite exhaustive efforts by the officers concerned to reconstruct the exhibit from all available sources, "neither the original document (three-member committee report) nor photocopy, draft, duplicate or any other secondary material thereof could be procured for its reconstruction".
Dismissal of Revision Petition
Justice Bunger observed the petitioner-plaintiff’s counsel responded that no copy had been retained, when asked during the hearing whether it possessed a photocopy of the report. The court found the explanation difficult to accept, observing: "The stand taken by counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff appears to be doubtful as no prudent person would tender/submit any document to any person/authority, let alone the court, without keeping a copy thereof for his own records."
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. It nevertheless held that the disappearance of the photocopy retained on the judicial file warranted an independent inquiry to fix responsibility for the lapse. The inquiry report is to be submitted to the Registrar-General of the High Court within three months.
