Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, Bharat P.Deshpande, JJ.
Shri Hemantkumar Sadanand Naik Gaonkar – Appellant
Versus
Pio Rogerio Salem Cotta – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 418 of 2022
Decided On : 02-01-2023
Judgment - Denial of Certified Copy - Civil Procedure Code - Sec. 33, Order XX Rule 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6A, 6B - The court quashed the Roznama order dtd. 14/01/2019 and remanded the Civil Suit No.129 of 2010 to the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona for a decision within three months from the date of the signed copy of the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners approached the court after being denied a certified copy of the judgment and decree allegedly passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Cancona in Regular Civil Suit No.120 of 2010. The court found that there was no signed and dated judgment found on the record, and thus remanded the suit to the lower court for a decision within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no signed and dated judgment found on the record, and thus remanded the suit to the lower court for a decision within three months.
Issues: Denial of certified copy, failure to prepare and sign the judgment, and the absence of a signed and dated judgment on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Sec. 33, Order XX Rule 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, and the decision in Ajay Singh and Anr. V/s. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr, (2017) 3 SCC 330, to quash the Roznama order and remand the suit for a decision within three months.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Roznama order dtd. 14/01/2019 and remanded the Civil Suit No.129 of 2010 to the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona for a decision within three months from the date of the signed copy of the order.
JUDGMENT
BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Heard the learned Counsel Shri A.D. Bhobe for the petitioners, learned Counsel Ms. R. Pereira for respondent No.6 and learned Advocate General Shri Devidas Pangam along with Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for the Government/ State appearing in SMWP No.2 of 2022 which is taken up along with the present matter.
2. Petitioners approached this Court being aggrieved of denial of issuance of certified copy of the judgment and decree allegedly passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Cancona in Regular Civil Suit No.120 of 2010 which was disposed of as per the Roznama order dtd. 14/01/2019.
3. Petitioners are the original defendant No.4 and 5 in the said suit. Respondent No.1 filed the said suit against the other respondents and the petitioner herein for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.129 of 2010. The present petitioners/defendants No.4 and 5 filed their counter claim dtd. 05/01/2019. Other respondents/defendants filed their written submissions. After the trial was concluded, the learned Judge placed the matter for judgment initially on 12/12/2018 and finally it was adjourned on 14/01/2019. On that day the following order in Roznama/order sheet (Exh.G) was passed :
"Called out today.
Adv Shri T.Karmalkar present for plaintiff.
Adv Ms.A.Panday holding Adv Shri F. Bhangui present for deft nos.1 a and b.
Adv Shri V. Gaykar present for deft nos.3 and 6.
Matter proceeds ex-parte against deft nos.3 and 6.
None present for deft no.7.
Exbt.D/131-Adv for deft nos.1 a and b filed letter of authority. Order passed-file.
Exbt.A/132 - Judgment pronounced-Suit of plaintiff is partly decreed with costs in terms of prayer a, b and c. Consequently counter claim filed by defendant nos.4 and 5 is dismissed with costs. Decree to be drawn accordingly.
Proceeding closed.
JUDGMENT: Proceeding is closed."
4. This endorsement is only in the Roznama sheet of the file dtd. 14/11/2019.
5. The petitioners immediately applied for certified copy and their application was registered vide No.17 of 2019. The date of delivery was fixed as 24/01/2019. Since then the petitioners are awaiting for the certified copy of the judgment and decree allegedly passed on 14/01/2019, till date. The petitioners filed representations with the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa and the Registry of this Court. However, the certified copy of the judgment and decree is not provided to him inspite of his repeated requests. The petitioners therefore praying for the following reliefs:
a) For a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of Regular Civil Suit No. 129/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division Canacona and upon perusing the Roznama Order dtd. 14/01/2019 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 129/2010, be pleased to quash and set aside the Roznama Order, consequently set aside the dismissal of the Counter claim and decree of the suit as recorded in the Roznama order dtd. 14/01/2019, with a direction to the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Canacona to dispose of the Regular Civil Suit No. 129/2010 and the Counter claim in accordance with the law.
b) For stay of the Roznama Order dtd. 14/01/2019 passed by the learned Judge in Regular Civil Suit No.129/2010, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition.
c) Ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) above.
d) Any other order this Hon'ble Court deems fit and. proper.
6. On the basis of submission of the Registry of this Court dtd. 06/10/2022, cognizance was taken of the fact that in many matters the learned Judge while working at Quepem and Canacona failed to complete the judgments and orders and signed copies of the judgments and orders are not in the file, registered as SMWP No.2 of 22. Though initially in the said SMWP the matters from 'A' Court, Quepem wherein the said Presiding Off
The judgment must be in writing, signed, and dated on the date of pronouncement, as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Quasi-judicial authorities must pronounce reasoned orders in open court with immediate file availability; certified copies require date endorsements for limitation exclusion; detailed procedural dire....
Omission to decree counter-claim in judgment's operative part and decree, despite favourable body findings, is substantive error not correctable under Section 152 CPC; remedy via appeal or review req....
A judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, and reasons for the decision; failure to comply renders it invalid.
Ex parte decrees must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper notice to defendants; failure to do so invalidates the decree.
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
