SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Del) 627

High Court Of Delhi
HARBH UPPAL - Appellant
Versus
J.N.UPPAL - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 158 of 1995
Decided On : 08/17/1995

Order 32A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not restrict the pronouncement of judgments or orders in open Court in suits relating to family matters.

Headnote:

ORDER 32A - SUITS RELATING TO FAMILY MATTERS - ORDER 32A RULE 2 - PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN OPEN COURT - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 22 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - COMPARISON - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Order 32A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not restrict the pronouncement of judgments or orders in open Court in suits relating to family matters.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, defendant in a suit for partition, filed an application seeking to restrain the publication of an order passed in another application in open Court. He contended that the order should be pronounced in camera and not be made available to the public, relying on Order 32A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Order 32A Rule 2 does not preclude the pronouncement of judgments or orders in open Court in suits relating to family matters. It noted that Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates the pronouncement of judgments in open Court and that this provision is not restricted by Order 32A Rule 2.

Issues: Whether Order 32A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the pronouncement of judgments or orders in open Court in suits relating to family matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Order 32A Rule 2 in light of Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and concluded that there is no restriction on the pronouncement of judgments or orders in open Court in suits relating to family matters. It also noted that Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which specifically restricts the pronouncement and publication of judgments in certain proceedings, was not included in Order 32A Rule 2.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's contention that the judgment in the other application should not be pronounced in open Court or published was not tenable.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appellant (defendant in the suit) appearing in person has preferred this appeal against order of the learned Single Judge in IA 7126195 in Suit No. 528194. The learned Single Judge accepted the prayer of the appellant, in view of Provisions of Order 32-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and ordered that proceedings in the suit, as and when they are taken up, could be held in camera. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the other prayer of the appellant seeking to restrain the publication of the order passed in another IA 3625195 in open Court. He held that the orders in IA 3625195 could be pronounced in open Court and be released to the registry. The appellant bos filed this appeal against latter part of the order in IA 7126195 as stated above.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent for partition. The appellant filed his written statement. On the ground that there were scandalous and unbecoming allegations in the said written statement filed by the appellant. the plaintiff (respondent) filed application IA 3625195 under Order 6 Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code for striking off those allegations. The appellant-defendant filed his reply in that IA and arguments were heard and Judgment reserved.

( 3 ) AT that stage the present application IA 7126195 was filed contending that the order in IA 3625195 should not be pronounced open Court nor published in the registry because of Order 32-A, Rule 2.

( 4 ) OF course, when this appeal was filed, we refused to consider he appeal for admission unless appellant withdrew certain unralled for allegations in the appeal. This was done and fresh set ofpapers filed. In the meantime, judgment in IA 3625195 was in fact pronounced. Appellant pressed for a decision in the appeal. At the stage of admission we are passing this order.

( 5 ) ORDER 32a refers to suits relating to matters concerning family". Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 states that the order shall apply n particular to suits or proceedings concerning the "family . . Thereafter sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 gives an illustrative list of suits or proceedings. Rule (2) of Order 32a provides that in certain. suits and proceedings, the proceedinss may be held in camera f the Court so desires. Sub-rule (6) of the order refers to the word family and gives a list of persons who shall be treated as constituting a family. The appellant contends that the learned Single Judge is. precluded from delivering judgment in TA 3625 95 n open Court in as much the delivery of judgment in the IA amounts to "proceedinss" falling within Rule (2) of Order 32a and should be delivered in camera According to him. even the order or judgment cannot be pronounced in Court nor can the same be made available in the registry for perusal by any member of the public. Order 32a Rule 2 reads :

"proceedings to be held in camera: In every suit or proceedings to which this order applies, the proceedings may be held in camera if the Court so desires and shall be so held if either party so desires. "

( 6 ) IN our view, the contention raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. Order 20 Rule ( 1 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins that the Court, after the case is heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable on some future day; and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. Sub-rule (3) of Rule I of Order 20 also states that the judgment may be pronounced in dictation in open Court to a shorthand-writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf. So far as the learned Single Judge sitting on the original side of this Court is concerned, these can be no doubt that he is bound to pronounce judgment in the open Court. This provision is not restricted by Order 32a Rule 2 in any manner.

( 7 ) WE do not








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top