Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : VISWANATHA SASTRY
Puvvada Narasimhamurthy - Appellant
Versus
Gadi Satyavathi - Respondent
Decided On : 02-19-76
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 20, RULE 1 - PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT - DATE OF JUDGMENT - DATE OF DECREE - EFFECT OF PRONOUNCEMENT - WITHDRAWAL OF REVISION PETITION AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER - POWER OF COURT TO ALTER ORDER - JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT - SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF REVISION PETITION - ORDER CANNOT BE ALTERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner in C.M.P. No. 660 of 1976 sought to withdraw the C.R.P. after the order was pronounced by the court in open court. The other petitioners objected, arguing that the order could not be altered once it had been delivered. The court had to decide whether it had the power to alter the order in such circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that once a judgment or order is delivered in open court, it cannot be altered, even if it has not been signed. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 194), which held that a judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal pronouncement or delivery in open court.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has the power to alter an order that has been pronounced in open court but not yet signed? 2. Whether the withdrawal of a revision petition after the pronouncement of the order affects the validity of the order?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pronouncement of a judgment or order in open court is a judicial act that cannot be altered. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 194), which held that a judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal pronouncement or delivery in open court. The court also held that the withdrawal of a revision petition after the pronouncement of the order does not affect the validity of the order.
Final Decision: The court refused to alter the order that had been pronounced in open court, even though the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 660 of 1976 sought to withdraw the C.R.P.
( 1 ) AFTER the order in these C. M. Ps. was pronounced by me on 12-2-1976 in open court by dictation to the shorthand writer, Mr. Obulpathi Chowdari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the C. M. P. No. 660 of 1976 appeared in the afternoon and urged that he would withdraw the C. R. P. itself and therefore I should not sign the order pronounced by me.
( 2 ) MR. P. A. Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the other three petitions took objection to this course as the order had already been delivered and it cannot be altered, even though the C. R. P. could be withdrawn by a subsequent act.
( 3 ) REGARDING the powers of the Court to alter orders in such circumstances, I heard both the learned counsel, Mr. Obulpathy Chowdary learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of Allahabad hit in v. Rent Controller Eviction Officer (AIR 1966 All) (FB) and urged that until the judgment is signed it can be altered or amended or even changed completely provided notice is given to the parties and they are hard before the proposed change is made.
( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. P. A. Chowdary learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when a judgment or order is delivered, it is not permissible for the court to change it even though the judgment has not been signed.
( 5 ) BOTH the parties have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 194 ). On a close scrutiny of the proposition laid down in that direction, I am inclined to agree with the submission made by Mr. P. A. Chowdary, Bose J, speaking for the Bench observed in paragraph 10 about meaning of a judgment as follows :"in our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal pronouncement or delivery in open court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there; that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague. All the rest the manner in which it is to be recorded, the say in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainly about its content and matter can be cured; but not the hard core, namely the formal intimation of the decision and its contents formally declared in a judicial way in open court. The exact way in which this is done does not matter. In some courts the judgment is delivered orally or read out, in some only the operative portion is pronounced, in some the judgment is merely signed after giving notice to the parties and laying the draft on the table for a given number of days for inspection. "
( 6 ) IT is do doubt true that their Lordships have observed in paragraph 12 that upto the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind and have got a sort of Locus Paenitentiae. But that would arise only in a case where the judgment has not been delivered as stated by their Lordships in paragraph 10.
( 7 ) I am also fortified in this view by the observations made by the in paragraph 14, wherein their Lordships have further stated that if a judgment happens not to be signed but is inadvertently acted on and executed the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good despite defects interpretation he mode of its subsequent authentication Their Lordships further laid down in the decision that when once the delivery of jut is made in open court to the knowledge of the parties and the world at large, the other things viz. , the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated or signed, or the signing and sealing, are all subsidiary things, which no do
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.