AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Sh. Pardeep Singh Bains, Tehsildar Payal, has produced photocopies of the original entries, which were made in the revenue record, and has pointed out that number of the Regular Second Appeal has wrongly been mentioned, in fact it is 1693 of 1978. During the computerization process, because of a typographical error, the number has wrongly been mentioned as 1093 of 1978. He further states that the steps are being taken to rectify the said typographical error.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the records of that appeal i.e. RSA No. 1693 of 1978 are also not available.
A perusal of the report of the Registry indicates that the said case appears to have burnt in the year 1999.
Registrar (Judicial) to take steps for reconstruction of the records of the RSA, if already not done, as per the High Court Rules and Orders/decision taken by the Committee. The matter be pursued at the earliest.
Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and directions.