Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI
Pabbati Shankaraiah - Appellant
Versus
Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Warangal - Respondent
Decided On : 08-30-72
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCEMENT - DEATH OF JUDGE BEFORE PRONOUNCEMENT - VALIDITY OF JUDGMENT DICTATED AT HOME AND TYPED BUT NOT SIGNED - WRIT PROCEEDINGS - APPLICABILITY OF RULES - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER XLI, RULE 31, ORDER XLI (A), RULE 14 AND ORDER XX, RULE 2 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SURENDRA SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1954 SC 194 - DISTINCTION FROM THE CASE OF JANGAM BHADRAIAH V. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, (1963) 2 ANDH WR 243 - HELD, JUDGMENT DICTATED AT HOME BY JUSTICE VAIDYA TO HIS SHORTHAND WRITER AND TYPED BY THE LATTER AND NOT SIGNED BY VAIDYA. J. , IS OF NO EFFECT AND IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR ANOTHER JUDGE TO PRONOUNCE IT IN OPEN COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions were heard by Justice Vaidya who reserved judgment. He dictated the judgment at home to the shorthand writer and it was typed. However, before he could pronounce the judgment in open Court, Justice Vaidya passed away. The matter was placed before another Judge for pronouncing the judgment prepared by Justice Vaidya.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it is not permissible for another Judge to pronounce the judgment dictated at home by Justice Vaidya before his death, as it was not signed by him and he had the right to change his mind at any time before actually delivering the judgment.
Issues: Whether a Judge of the High Court can pronounce the judgment dictated by a deceased Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * The judgment of a Court 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 manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated etc. , can be cured ; but the not the hard core, namely the formal intimation of the decision and its contents formally declared in a judicial way in open Court. * A Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it and the Court must have inherent jurisdiction to supply such a defect. * However, in the present case, the judgment was not signed by the Judge and he had not pronounced it in open Court. Therefore, it is of no effect and cannot be pronounced by another Judge.
Final Decision: The court held that the judgment dictated at home by Justice Vaidya to his shorthand writer and typed by the latter and not signed by Vaidya. J. , is of no effect and it is not permissible for another Judge to pronounce it in open Court.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions were heard by late Justice Vaidya on 19-4-1972 and 20-4-1972 and he reserved judgment. It appears that he dictated this judgment at home to the shorthand writer and the judgment was duly typed. But unfortunately before he could pronounce the judgment in open Court, Justice Vaidya passed away. The matter was placed before me for pronouncing the judgment prepared by late Justice Vaidya. As I however felt some doubt about the feasibility of such a course, I heard the counsel on both sides on this aspect of the matter. Having considered the matter carefully in the light of their submissions, I have very reluctantly come to the conclusion for the reasons set out below that it is not permissible for me to pronounce the judgment which was dictated at home by Justice Vaidya before his death. It may also be stated that the judgment typed according to his dictation was not signed by him, as it is the usual practice for a Judge in the case of a reserved judgment to read the judgment in open Court on a day fixed for that purpose after giving notice to counsel on both sides and to sigh the judgment after pronouncing the same in open Court.
( 2 ) PROCEEDINGS under Article 226 of the Constitution are governed by Rules made by the High Court under that Article. Among those rules there are none relating to the pronouncing of judgments. Rule 20 however states that all other rules relating to causes and matters coming before the appellate side of the High Court will apply to writ petitions and writ appeals in so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules.
( 3 ) ORDER XLI, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the contents, date and signature of judgments in regards to appeals from original decrees. Inter alia the rule provides that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and where the presiding Judge is special empowered by the High Court to pronounce his judgment by dictation to a shorthand-writer in open Court the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after such revision as may be deemed necessary, be signed by the Judges. Order XLI (A) however says that Order XLI Rule 31 shall not apply to the High Court. If a judgment is given orally, the shorthand, notes thereof shall be taken by an Officer of the Court, and the transcript made by him shall be signed or initialled by the Judge or Judges concurring, thereunder after making such corrections as may be considered necessary. Order XLI (A) Rule (A) (1) provides that the rules contained in Order XLI shall apply to appeals in the High Court of Judicature with the modifications contained in this order. Thus it is seen from the provisions of Order XLI A Rule (1) Rule 14 (Order ELI A Rule 14 ?) read with Rule 20 of the Rules framed under Article 226, that there is no specific provision as to what is to happen in the case of judgment which is reserved and which is dictated thereafter by the learned Judge and typed and the Judge unfortunately dies before he pronounces the judgment in open Court without signing the judgment.
( 4 ) ORDER XX, Rule (2) which deals with trial Courts provides that a Judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor. The rule however is inapplicable to judgments in Writ proceedings though the said proceedings are extraordinary original proceedings on the side of the High Court, as under the rule made under Article 226, is only the rules which govern appeals on the appellate side of the High Court that are applicable so such proceedings. Apart from this, it cannot be said that a Judge who dies is in any sense a predecessor of another Judge of the same High Court within the meaning of Order XX, Rule (2 ).
( 5 ) HENCE the question whether any Judge of this Court can pronounce the judgment dictated by a deceased Judge has to be considered on general principles. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider a somewhat similar situation in Surendra Singh v. State of Utta
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
