Judgment :- 1. These petitions are by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 205 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Alleppey. He had made two applications for copies of orders passed in the case on 12-12-1950 for purposes of preferring appeals against them. The applications were filed on 13-12-1960 and on 2-1-1961 respectively. They were rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on 22-3-1961, and the decree-holder seeks to revise the above-said orders of rejection. 2. When the petition came up for admission before me, I directed the remarks of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Alleppey to be called for; and accordingly he has submitted his remarks by a letter dated 6-7-1961. The learned Subordinate Judge says that the applications for copies were sent to the execution section the very next day of their receipt in court, that is to say on 14-12-1960 and 3-1-1961 respectively. The records in the case were called for by the High Court for purposes of A.S. 408 of 1960 and were sent to the High Court on 11-2-1961, i. e., more than one month after the applications for copies were submitted before the learned Subordinate Judge. On 22-3-1961 both the applications were rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the records whose copies were applied for were not available in his Court. Needless to say, the rejection of the applications were absolutely unwarranted. When the applications were submitted and for a period of more than a month thereafter the records were available in his Court, and the learned Subordinate Judge has not given any explanation for not having the copies prepared in that interval. 3. Even after the records have been sent over to another Court, the applications for copies, which have been expressly mentioned to be for purposes of preferring appeals, ought not have been rejected lightly. If the records were not available with that court for preparation of the copies, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have returned the applications for presentation to the proper court with an intimation that the records have been sent over to such and such court. The orders of the court below impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions were quite unwarranted; they are set aside and the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to restore them on his file and deliver them back to the applicant thereof as indicated above. Allowed.