MODI, J.—This is an application made on behalf of Smt. Basanti Devi and her minor son Prahlad under Order 20 rule 3 C.P.C. and rule 88(2) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with section 151 C.P.C.

2. The facts which have given rise to this application may be shortly stated. Hiranand filed a second appeal in this court under section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 2 Jodhpur, dated February 27, 1973. This appeal was registered as S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 187 of 1973. It came up for hearing before the Honble J.P. Jain J. At the close of the hearing, the teamed Judge dictated the judgment to a short-hand writer in open court on September 10, 1975, in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the appeal. By the order of the learned Judge, the fact dismissing the appeal was recorded in the order sheer by the Reader of the Court on that very day, i. e. September 10,1975 Before the transcript of the Judgment could be signed by the learned Judge, he unfortunately expired. As per rule 88 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the Registrar, after obtaining the orders from Honble the Acting Chief Justice, appended the following note at the end of the typed transcript of the judgment, : —

"The judgment was dictated and delivered in open Court by the Honble Justice J.P. Jain on September 10, 1975. His Lordships signature could not be obtained on the judgment because his sad demise on 17-9-1975."

3 On December 4, 1975, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Hiranand (who died during ?he pendency of the appeal) moved the present application with the prayer that since the transcript of the judgment pronounced by the late Honble J.P. Jain J. on September 10, 1975 was not signed by the learned Judge, it is not a judgment in the eye of law and therefore the second appeal No. 187 of 1973 should be deemed to be still pending before this Court. This application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The relevant law of the subject is contained in rules 30 and 31 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 30 provides that "the appellate court after hearing the parties or their pleaders and referring to any part of the proceedings, whether on appeal or in the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, to which reference may be considered necessary, shall pronounce judgment in open court, either at once or on some future day of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders." This rule contemplates oral pronouncement of the judgment in the open court at once i e, soonafter the conclusion of the hearing. Then comes rule 31, which is important. It runs thus,—

"31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.— (1) The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state—

(a) the points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reasons for the decision; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled;

and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.

(2) Where the judgment is pronounced by dictation to a short-hand writer in open court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after such revision as may be deemed necessary, be signed by the Judge and shall bear the date of its pronouncement,

(3) In cases where a judgment is not written by the Judge in his own hand, but dictated and taken down verbatim by another person, each page of the judgment shall be initialled by him".

5. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants, has moved the application under Order 20 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since we are concerned here with the appellate judgment, the appropriate provisions of law applicable to the case are rule 30 and 31 of Order 41 Code of Civil Procedure. Even so, let us examine, rules 1, 2 and 3 of Order 20, which relate to judgments delivared by the trial co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document