Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) A revision petition was filed in this Court by Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere and others against an order of learned trial court dated 4th March, 1981 whereby a witness was directed to produce certain documents/letters. This order was passed by the learned trial court inspire of the objection of the defendants to their production on the ground of relevancy.
(2) It appears that Sh P.N. Krishnamurthy, respondent herein, had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from infringement of his certain registered copy rights. He had also filed a suit in 1972 against the defendants for accounts in relation to the aforesaid alleged copy rights. Both the suits, I am told, were consolidated and the plaintiff, Sh. P.N. Krishnamurthy, completed his evidence as far back September, 1973. Thereafter the defendants started their evidence. The defendants last witness Mr. Desmond Ignatius complete his examination-in-chief on 18th April, 197 7 and his cross-examination continued since then till the impugned order was passed by the trial court on 4th March, 1981 and is still going on.
(3) In the meantime, the matter came up in revision atleast twice for various interlocutory reliefs with the results that the cross-examination was still going on 4th March, 1981, when the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court.
(4) Against this order of learned trial Court the Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere and others/petitioners herein has come up in revision. The revision came up for hearing before Sultan Singh, J and after hearing both the parties at length, the learned Judge felt that the order of learned trial Court is correct but he modified the order to the limited extent that the documents will be produced under sealed cover and the plaintiff would not be entitled to see it till the trial Court decides about their relevancy. With these remarks the petition was dismissed by order dated 25th November, 1982.
(5) Surprisingly, Sh. Krishnamurthy felt aggrieved by this order had filed a review application on 16th December, 1982. This review application was dismissed by Sultan Singh, J. on 20th January, 1983.
(6) In the meanwhile, it appears that Sh P.N. Krishnamurthy on 27th November, 1982 i.e. after the decision of Sultan Singh, J. made a complaint that one of the documents which had been filed earlier by the Defendants in support of their defense has been tampered with in this Court during the period 20th November, 1982 to 27th November, 1982. The plaintiff, Sh. P.N. Krishnamurthy made an application to the registry on 26th November, 1982 for inspection of the records of the trial Court, which he inspected on 27th November, 1982 when he noticed that the document which has been marked as Bb (i.e. unproved) by the trial court has been tampered with in as much as on the left hand side of the document, the signatures portion of the document has been torn out. The inspection clerk advised him to make the complaint to the authority whereupon Sh Krishnamurthy made a complaint to the Registrar of this Court about this tampering. The Registrar directed the Assistant Registrar (Vigilance) to make an inquiry into it. The Assistant Registrar (Vigilance) made the report dated 11th August, 1983 and held that the tampering is obvious but he has not been able to find out, who is the person responsible for the tampering. The tampering is to the effect that the signatures appearing on the documents are no longer there i.e. the document was born to that extent.
(7) The plaintiff, Sb. Krishnamurthy, then filed an application (C.M. No. 3179 of 1988 on the judicial side in relation to the inquiry which has been conducted on the administrative side of the High Court. This application came up for hearing before J.D. Jain, J. and he directed the supplementary statement of Sh. Rajendra Dhawan, one of the counsels for the petitioner, to be recorded by the Inquiry Officer. This statement was also recorded on 21st July, 1984.
(8) I have gone through the supplementary statement of Sh. Rajendra Dhawan and find that it does not improve the matter.
(9) It appears to me that this application should not have been registered on the judicial side and should have been dealt with on the Administrative side as the injury was directed by the Registrar on the Administrative side. However, nothing further need be said about it.
(10) It will be noticed that this particular document which has been tampered with was marked as 'BB', on the objection of the plaintiff that the document has not been proved. However, the defendants had filed another document which purported to be a carbon copy of this document marked 'BB' which was initially objected to on behalf of the plaintiff and was ultimately with the consent of the parties was marked as Ext. D-90.
(11) Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted that in the trial Court in crossexamination, the witness had admitted that this document marked D-90 is not a carbon copy of document marked 'BB'. yet while the inquiry officer was making the inquiry into the tampering of document and its re-construction, another copy of the said document marked 'BB' was filed which was deposed to by Sh. Desmond Ignatius as being a photo copy of a document which is similar to document 'BB' except for certain additional nothings.
(12) It appears to me that enough inquiry has been conducted by this court on the administrative side and with best possible efforts, it has not been able to find out, who is responsible for this tampering and the inquiry officer has also noted in his report that the reconstruction will be done by the Court.
(13) It appears to me that the whole inquiry has been in complete waste of time of this Court. A document which purported to be a photo copy had already been exhibited as Ext. D-90 in the trial Court. This document which was marked as 'BB' was never admitted in evidence and remains unproved an, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served by insisting no inquiry of tampering of this document and its re-construction. This is particularly so because with the consent of the parties Ext. D-90 which purported to be a carbon copy has already been proved on record.
(14) I may mention that after the trial in the suits is completed parties are entitled to take back and should be returned the unproved documents on record. In fact the returning of such documents is a duty of the Court.
(15) With these remarks the application of the respondent (C.M. No. 3179 of 1983) is disposed of. The records of the trial Court which have been lying in this court right from 1982 will be sent back immediately so that the cross-examination finishes.