High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
PHOOL KUMARI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. - Appellant
Versus
NANDU RAM - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 200, 195, 196, 201, 206, 209, 212, 215 and 216 of 2002
Decided On : 09/17/2002
Unsigned Judgment - Validity of Judgment - Order 20 of the Code - [Order 20 of the Code] - The court examined the effect of an unsigned judgment due to the death of the Judicial Officer. It referred to various interpretations of Rule 3 of Order 20 of the Code by different High Courts and the Honble Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others, AIR 1988 SC 371, which held that an unsigned judgment pronounced in open Court is valid and effective. The court directed the successor Judicial Officer to authenticate the unsigned judgments to ensure their validity and facilitate further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The judgments in several civil suits were pronounced in open Court by a Subordinate Judge who died before signing them. The court examined the validity of these unsigned judgments under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unsigned judgments pronounced in open Court were valid and effective, following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others, AIR 1988 SC 371. It directed the successor Judicial Officer to authenticate the unsigned judgments to ensure their validity and facilitate further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of judgments pronounced in open Court but remained unsigned due to the death of the Judicial Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Rule 3 of Order 20 of the Code by different High Courts and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others, AIR 1988 SC 371, to establish the validity of unsigned judgments pronounced in open Court.
Final Decision: The court held that the unsigned judgments pronounced in open Court were valid and effective. It directed the successor Judicial Officer to authenticate the unsigned judgments to ensure their validity and facilitate further proceedings.
R.L. Khurana, J,—"Whether a judgment which has been pronounced in the open Court but has remained unsigned due to the death of the Judicial Officer is a valid and binding judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure - is the common question of law which is involved in the present set of nine revision petitions taken up by this court in exercise of its suo motu powers under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure (for short: the Code).
2. Civil Suits No. 280/1 of 1999/96, 452/1 of 1999, 314/1 of 1999/ 96, 132/1 of 1999/92 and 376/1 of 1999/96 were decreed by the learned Sub fudge 1st Class. Kasauli at Solan, respectively on 6.10.2001, 24.9.2001, 10.10.2001, 12.9.2001 and 20.9.2001 while Civil Suits No. 54/1 of 2000/96, 91/1 of 1999/94, 565/1 of 1999/93 and 154/1 of 1999/98 were dismissed respectively on 22.8.2001, 16.10.2001, 28.7.2001 and 29.9.2001.
3. The learned Sub Judge, namely, Shri Piar Chand Chauhan, who recorded the judgments in all the above mentioned cases and had pronounced them in open Court on respective dates, died on 20.11.2001. The judgments in all the above noted cases could not be signed by him either for the reason of late transcription of the Judgments or for some other reason.
4. When the matter was brought to the notice of this court on the administrative side by the successor in office of the deceased Judicial Officer, the records of all the cases were summoned and ordered to be taken up on the judicial side in exercise of the suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code in Order to examine the question as to the effect of the judgment recorded, delivered/pronounced by a Subordinate Judge which has remained unsigned due to the death of such Subordinate Judge.
5. Notices were issued to the parties. Parties and/or their counsel were heard.
6. Order 20 of the Code, insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of the question involved in the present cases, reads:— "1. Judgment when pronounced.—(1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment In an open court, either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable 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: Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the court to pronounce the judgment within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the court to read out the whole judgment. (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High court in this behalf: Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.
2. Power to pronounce judgment written by Judges predecessor.—A Judge shall pronounce a judgment written, but not pronounced, by his predecessor.
3. Judgment to be signed.—The judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open court at the time of pronouncing it, and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by section 152 or on review. 4.............................................
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.