( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 111 of 1967 on the file of the learned erstwhile Subordinate Judge. Tirupati. It came to be filed under certain extraordinary circumstances. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession against respondents 3 to 5 (for short the respondents ). A preliminary decree was passed on 17-10-1970, where under the petitioner was held to be entitled to 2/3rd share and the respondents, to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The respondents filed A. S. No. 556 of 1970 before this Court assailing the preliminary decree. The appeal is said to have been partly allowed, sustaining the preliminary decree in all respects, but restricting it to certain items of the suit schedule property. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed I. A. No. 14 of 1971 in the trial Court forthe final decree proceedings. It is stated that during the course of final decree proceedings, the well wishers of both the parties moved certain compromise proposals and that the petitioner agreed to restrict his share to 1/2 , from 2/3rd. Accordingly, I. A. No. 179 of 1979 is stated to have been filed by both the parties for recording a compromise for distribution of the properties in two equal shares. The compromise is said to have been recorded on 20-03-1979. ( 4 ) THE petitioner submits that the respondents filed a Caveat in the trial Court on 29-02-1990 stating that they are entitled to 2/3rd share and the petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd share under the compromise decree and they apprehend that the petitioner may make a claim for a larger extent. ( 5 ) THE petitioner states that the compromise was recorded on 20-03-1979 and that he obtained a certified copy of the compromise decree, dated 20-03-1979, on 20-02-1980. He also submits that in the office copies that were exchanged between the parties, it was clearly mentioned that the parties agree for sharing the properties equally. He states that he submitted a complaint to the learned District Judge, who, in turn, ordered enquiry into the whole episode. According to him, though the enquiry discloses that the record in the suit, particularly the compromise decree, was tampered with, the actual persons guilty of the same were not identified. He states that he submitted a complaint to the learned District Judge, who, in turn, ordered enquiry into the whole episode. According to him, though the enquiry discloses that the record in the suit, particularly the compromise decree, was tampered with, the actual persons guilty of the same were not identified. His grievance is that the proceedings in their entirety were dropped and no steps were taken by respondents 1 and 2, the learned District and Sessions Judge and the Additional Senior Civil Judge, chittoor, Chittoor District, to reconstruct the record. ( 6 ) HEARD Sri Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner ( 7 ) ON an earlier occasion, this Court passed an order dismissing the Civil Revision petition. However, it was set aside at the instance of the respondents, leaving it open to them to make their submissions. The learned counsel engaged by them has since been elevated as a Judge. Thereafter, they did not make any arrangements. The record discloses that respondents are evading service of the notice sent by the Court. In fact, once they have entered appearance, it is not necessary to put them on notice once again. ( 8 ) NARRATION of the facts in the preceding paragraphs discloses that the learned district Judge ordered an enquiry into the allegations of tampering with the record in o. S. No. 111 of 1967. It had emerged that the tampering did take place, but the guilty were not traced. That, at the most, may be an excuse to drop the proceedings against the suspected employees. However, once the record is found to have been tampered with, it is the duty of the Court to put it straight. The petitioner states that he is in possession of a certified copy issued by the trial Court in the year 1980. If the certified copy is found to be genuine, it can certainly constitute the basis to reconstruct and rectify the record. The record re-constructed by the petitioner, on the basis of the certified copies, is said to have been submitted by him to the learned district Judge, who is, in turn, stated to have transmitted to the trial Court. If the certified copy is found to be genuine, it can certainly constitute the basis to reconstruct and rectify the record. The record re-constructed by the petitioner, on the basis of the certified copies, is said to have been submitted by him to the learned district Judge, who is, in turn, stated to have transmitted to the trial Court. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the Civil revision petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent i. e. , trial Court to reconstruct the records, duly verifying the genuineness of the certified copies filed by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.