Kerala High Court pulls up trial court for denying certified copies to litigant owing to faulty Xerox machine

The Kerala High Court recently took exception to a commercial court rejecting a litigant's request for certified copies of arbitral records on the ground that its xerox machine was not functional [Nest Realities India (P) Ltd & ors v Kunnel Engineers & Contractors]

Justice K Natarajan observed that the certified copies of case records could not be denied to parties just because the xerox machine wasn't working as parties have a legal right to get copies.

Thus, the Court directed the trial court to allow external copying of the records or to provide soft copies to the petitioners within a week.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the petitioners are entitled for the certified copy as per the law. But, the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the machine is out of order and AMC is not extended and other applications are pending and rejecting the application, which is not correct," the High Court said.

The petitioners approached the commercial court seeking certified copies of arbitral records spanning over 2,800 pages.

They also sought permission to engage an external agency to take copies at their own cost, given the volume of documents.

However, both requests were denied by the trial court, stating that the xerox machine was out of order, its Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) had lapsed, and other applications for copies were also pending.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction against the commercial court to issue the certified copies.

When the matter came up before the High Court, it observed that when the court's own facilities were unavailable, it should have taken steps to inform the Principal District Judge, who in turn could have approached the High Court to make temporary arrangements.

"If the machine is not functioning, the Presiding officer ought to have brought to the notice of the Principal District Judge and in turn the Principal District Judge ought to have requested this Court for providing the xerox machine for the purpose of issuing the copies by alternative method. Merely, on the ground of, xerox machine is not functioning, AMC which was expired that itself are not a ground for rejecting the application," the Court made it clear.

It noted that although the trial court had sent a request to the High Court for a new xerox machine, that alone could not justify keeping the parties waiting.

Alternative arrangements such as external copying of the records or soft copy transmission to the applicants should have been explored by the court without delay, the single-judge stated.

"The trial court should have made request to this Court for providing certified copies by external sources, that was not done. As a matter of urgency, the trial Court ought to have obtained the permission of the Principal District Judge and allowed the petitioners to get the copies through external agency at their own cost," the Court stated.

Hence, the Court set aside the trial court's orders and directed it to permit the petitioners to take copies through an external agency at their own expense.

It also ordered the trial court to send an official to accompany the files for external copying and to issue the certified or soft copies to the petitioners within one week of receiving the judgment.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Counsel Santhosh Mathew along with advocates Sharan Shahier, Rhea Sherry, Angelina Joy, Shwetha Maria Solomon and Umamaheswary PM.

[Read Judgment]