Judgment :- 1. The decree-holder in OS 330/1963, on the file of the Munsiff's Court Payyoli, is the revision petitioner. 2. For the non-production of the decree, the executing court dismissed his application (EP 121 of 1980) for execution of the decree. 3. Attempts on the part of the petitioner to obtain a certified copy of the decree however failed as the court records pertaining to the case, had been destroyed under orders of court. 4. Whether an execution petition not accompanied by copy of the decree is or is not maintainable, need not be considered in this revision although this point was pointedly considered by the executing court in view of the order, I propose to pass regarding the jurisdiction of the court to reconstruct the records which had been lost or destroyed. 5. That the records essential to prepare certified copy of the decree are not available as having been destroyed under orders of court, is beyond dispute. The petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the decree for the purpose of producing the same in the execution petition, is virtually admitted. That the application however was rejected as the records necessary for the preparation of the certified copy, bad all been destroyed, is beyond dispute. 6. Records may get lost in transit from the first court to the second court or they can as well get destroyed by accident or due to some unforeseen reasons or under orders of court. 7. How to get over the difficulty brought about by such events, is the question before this court. The Procedure Code which regulates the proceedings before the civil courts, does not contain any provision conferring jurisdiction on the civil courts to tide over this difficulty. The common law recognised in this country had provided no adequate means by which the injury suffered by a suitor out of such situations could be remedied. This may sound strange. That however, does not mean that there is no remedy at all. The inherent power recognised in every court, can, in such circumstances be thought of. 8. This power is relevant to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. This may sound strange. That however, does not mean that there is no remedy at all. The inherent power recognised in every court, can, in such circumstances be thought of. 8. This power is relevant to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. If that be so we "can safely start with the proposition that there is inherent power in every court to reconstruct its own records" and help parties to proceedings before it to get extricated from situations brought about by destruction of court records, not attributable to them but due to vis major or act of state, like destruction under orders of court, etc. The appellate court in the exercise of its inherent power is equally competent to reconstruct the records of the court from which the appeal arises because the hearing of an appeal under the procedural law of the country is in the nature of rehearing and therefore the appellate court may make such order as the court of first instance could have made, had the case been heard by the first court on the date on which the appeal was beard (Vide Lachmeshwar v. Keshwarlal, AIR. 1941 FC 5) 9. A Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Marakkarutti v. Veeran Kutty (AIR 1923 Madras 647 (FB) has held thus: "that one can safely start with the proposition that there is inherent power in every court to reconstruct its own records and I think it follows that there is inherent power in the appellate court to reconstruct the records of the Court from which an appeal lies to it. This power has been recognised in England and in America, which follows the English Common Law, and also in this country " With respect I agree with this view. 10. To invoke this jurisdiction of the court, the party however, has to satisfy the court that his attempts to get the records which have been destroyed have not been successful. The court on verification finds that the records have been destroyed, shall take steps to reconstruct the records. 11. On an application for reconstructing the records being filed, it is for the judge before whom the application is filed, to decide how the records should be reconstructed. The court on verification finds that the records have been destroyed, shall take steps to reconstruct the records. 11. On an application for reconstructing the records being filed, it is for the judge before whom the application is filed, to decide how the records should be reconstructed. The Judge in this connection, can get the assistance of the parties by obtaining true copies of the records available with them. It will always be advisable to have the records reconstructed by the court, that heard the matter even if the application for reconstruction is made to the appellate court. These are but some of the guidelines. They are not exhaustive. They are illustrative. These should be kept in view by the court which orders reconstruction of the record. 12. I therefore direct the Munsiff, Payyoli, who passed the decree, to reconstruct the relevant records and draw up the final decree in accordance with law and provide the petitioner, a certified copy of the decree, so that he can produce the same in the execution court. The order under challenge accordingly is set aside and the execution petition is remanded to the court below, to be disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this order. 13. The Execution Court shall give the petitioner sufficient time to produce a certified copy of the decree. The Execution Court shall also give an opportunity of being heard, both to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors, before the execution petition is finally disposed of. The CRP is allowed in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.