JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. This petition is filed by the petitioners directing the Commercial Court, Ernakulam to issue certified copies of the arbitral records to the petitioners at their own expense and till then, the proceedings shall be kept abeyance. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Perused the order of rejection of the application for issuing certified copy, filed by the petitioners and another IA filed by the petitioners for seeking permission to take certified copies through an external agency at their own cost, which has been rejected by the trial court. 4. On perusal of the order, though the trial court stated that the documents applied by the petitioners is 2800 pages and xerox machine is currently not able to take copies of 2800 pages and AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) also expired and rejected the application and even another application for taking external source also rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhu reported in 2016 SCC Online Ker 41273. 4. 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. 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. Though, the trial court stated, the request was sent to this Court and it is under consideration. However, the trial Court also rejected the application for taking the copies through external agency. Of course, a letter was sent to this Court and it is already considered and is said to be placed orders for providing a xerox machine. However, until providing a xerox machine, the parties will not be kept waiting for issuance of certified copies. However, the trial Court also rejected the application for taking the copies through external agency. Of course, a letter was sent to this Court and it is already considered and is said to be placed orders for providing a xerox machine. However, until providing a xerox machine, the parties will not be kept waiting for issuance of certified copies. 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. 5. Therefore, I am of the view that even if 2800 copies are not able to provide, the District Court and Sub Court should have allowed the petitioners, as a special case, for taking xerox copy through external sources or an alternative method for providing soft copy. 6. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed. i. The orders under challenge are hereby set aside; ii. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to get the copies through an external agency at their own cost; iii.The trial court is directed to send an official to carry the file until taking the copies from the external agency and; iv.The trial Court is directed to issue copies to the petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. v. Alternatively, the trial Court may provide soft copy to the Counsel for the petitioners.