Law suits: India

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry, deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries. Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings; and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch. See examples and a tutorial.

Loss of law suit documents serious matter: Bombay HC

From the archives of The Times of India 2010

Swati Deshpande, TNN | Apr 25, 2011, 09.35pm IST

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has observed that it is necessary to conduct an inquiry before allowing re-construction of lost or untraceable law suit documents if issues disputing the application for reconstruction are raised by any party to the suit.

The HC observed that loss of record of suit papers from the court premises was "undoubtedly a very serious matter" as mentioned by additional solicitor general Darius Khambata, especially since the rules require the administrative office to "permanently preserve" certain documents at the HC which is a court of record.

Justice RM Sawant made this observation while passing orders in an application challenging the re-construction of a 1969 property suit. An MP government company had alleged that the re-construction was done at the behest of a law firm which was not authorized to represent the persons who had originally filed the suit that involves a high-stake property dispute. This contention was strongly opposed by lawyers for the other side.

The judge who ordered an inquiry into the re-construction in the case at hand however also observed to avoid situations where disputes and challenges are raised later, "the office would have to devise some modality so that the record is maintained for posterity, and at least the decree/orders disposing of proceedings are maintained separately in a manner, beyond the scope of any wrong doing or mischief."

The reconstruction of record of court documents is governed by a 1995 circular, which was issued precisely to cover situations of loss of record. "If there is a consensus between the parties the reconstruction would pose no problems, but if there is an issue between the parties on any ground, in my view, it is necessary to conduct an enquiry about the reasons by giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard and only then decide whether or not to order a reconstruction."