JUDGMENT:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the Civil Revision petition filed highlighting the irregularities committed by the learned Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai while pronouncing the judgment in O.S. No. 584 of 1996. The controversy in the suit need not be detailed, as the points in issue in the present appeal lie within a very narrow compass.

3. The Suit was filed by the present respondent for specific performance to enforce a sale agreement dated 20.10.1988. The suit is stated to have been decided on 24.03.1999. According to the present respondent, who was the petitioner in the Civil Revision petition, even without dictating the judgment to the Stenographer, transcribing and signing the same, simply an endorsement in the plaint docket sheet was made to the effect that the plaintiff in the suit was not entitled to the relief of specific performance to enforce a sale agreement but was entitled to refund of Rs.2,00,000/-. Stand in the revision petition was that there was no judgment in the eye of law. It was pointed out that only the operative portion was dictated on 25.03.1999 during lunch time and, therefore, the decision rendered on 24.03.1999 was non est in the eye of law and a nullity. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the Civil Revision petition i.e. the present appellant took the stand that four issues and an additional issue had been framed. The entire judgment had been dictated by learned Single Judge and the transcribed part covered the vital issues 1 to 3 and the Stenographer was half way through the fourth issue and the additional issue. Therefore, it was submitted that a reasonable inference should be drawn that all the issues had been dictated to the stenographer and on the date the judgment was pronounced, i.e. 24.03.1999, the judgment must be deemed to have been completed. Learned Single Judge did not find substance in the stand taken by the present appellant. It was held that since the learned Trial Judge had not completed the judgment before he delivered his decision, it has to be held that there was no judgment in the eye of law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition was allowed and judgment dated 24.03.1999 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the present Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai who was to hear the arguments afresh and render a decision.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the course adopted by learned City Civil Judge is permissible in law in the background of Order XX, Rule-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `the CPC).

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Trial Judge has not decided the matter in the background of Order XX, Rule 5, CPC. On the contrary, the provisions of Order XX, Rules-1 and 3 apply to the facts of the case.

6. Order XX, Rule-1 (1) of the CPC (Madras Amendment) reads as follows:

"(1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.

(2) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation to a shorthand-writer in open court, where the presiding Judge has been specially empowered in that behalf by the High Court."

Similarly, Order XX, Rule 3 reads as follows:

"The judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review."

7. Order XX, Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the appellant says that in Suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision with the reason therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the Suit.