Reconstruction of a destroyed record and a disputed decretal amount
A certified-copy applicant asks for a copy of the decree in O.S. No. 87 of 2003, decided on 22 September 2006 and consigned to the record room in 2009. On search, the original record is not traceable. The destruction register shows a batch entry for 'old civil records up to 2008' approved on 14 November 2019, but the entry against this case appears overwritten, the authorising officer's designation is not shown, and two folios of the register are missing. The copy register records that a certified copy was issued on 7 March 2011 to the decree-holder, and an office copy of that copy survives. The decree register, however, shows the decretal amount as Rs 4,25,000 with costs of Rs 18,400 and interest at 6 per cent per annum, while the surviving copy shows Rs 4,52,000 with the same costs and interest. No appeal appears to have been filed. The applicant is the legal representative of the original plaintiff and needs the copy for execution.
1. Draft the office note on how the request is to be processed, and state what may and may not be certified.
Read the worked answer
The note must proceed step by step and record each step. First, a fresh search of the record room, the civil miscellaneous and appeal sections, and the judge's own papers, with the result entered in the search register. Second, a comparison of the destruction register with the retention schedule and the batch approval: the overwriting, the missing designation and the two missing folios mean the destruction cannot be presumed regular, and an irregular destruction of a judicial record is itself a matter requiring a report to the Registrar (Judicial) with a preserved copy of the register pages, since they may be needed in an inquiry.
Third, the surviving office copy of the 2011 certified copy is the only reliable base. A copy may be issued from it, but the endorsement must be truthful: 'certified true copy of the office copy of the certified copy issued on 7 March 2011, the original record having been destroyed' - with the date of the destruction entry. It must never be issued as though it were a copy of the original decree. The applicant should be told in writing of the basis on which the copy is issued, so that the execution court can weigh it.
2. How should the discrepancy in the decretal amount (Rs 4,25,000 against Rs 4,52,000) be resolved before the copy is issued?
Read the worked answer
The discrepancy cannot be resolved by preferring one document on impression; it must be tested against independent records, in a fixed order. The decree register is a contemporaneous official entry made at the time of the decree and carries its own presumption, but it is a summary entry and can itself be a copying error. The 2011 certified copy was issued from the original when the original existed, and therefore speaks to what the original contained at that date, which gives it high value. The judgment, if a copy survives in the judgment-book or the appellate papers, will usually recite the decretal amount and is the best tie-breaker. If execution proceedings were ever registered, the execution petition and the sale papers will show the amount actually sought.
If these do not converge, the Examiner must not silently choose. The file goes to the Registrar (Judicial) with a comparative statement, and the copy issues with an endorsement noting that the office copy shows one figure and the decree register another and that the discrepancy was not resolved from the available record. A court asked to execute a decree would rather see the doubt than a false certainty.
3. What should the record room do so that this situation does not recur, and who is answerable for the missing folios?
Read the worked answer
Procedural fixes: a year-wise retention schedule displayed in the record room, with destruction done only in batches carrying a serial number, the designation of the sanctioning authority, the date and the signature of two officers; the destruction register to be bound, machine-numbered and never corrected by overwriting - a correction must be by a signed marginal note. Before destruction, every record must be screened for pending execution, appeal or certified-copy requests, and a duplicate or digitised copy retained for records of lasting value.
Accountability: the custodian of the register at the relevant time is answerable for the missing folios and the overwritten entry, and the report to the Registrar (Judicial) should identify the entries by date and the officers on duty, leaving the disciplinary assessment to the competent authority. The Examiner's duty is limited to placing the facts on record accurately and promptly; suppressing the irregularity to make a clean file would itself be misconduct.
Interim measure: an immediate reconciliation of the destruction register against the record-room index, entry by entry, and suspension of further destruction until that is complete.