ORDER
Kulkarni, J.
1. Shri I.G. Gachchinamath for respondent-1 has filed two copy applications in C.R.Nos. 743 and 4951 of 1986 praying for issue of the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in the present appeal M.F.A.No. 2100 of 1983-on 8-1-1986. The office has made a note that the order dated 8-1-1986 was recalled by us on 17-1-1986. The office has also sought for a direction as to whether the certified copy of the order dated 8-1-1986 could be issued when the said order is not on the file and in the records.
2. Heard Shri I.G.Gachchinamath who has applied for certified copies and also the learned Government Advocate Shri Hiremath in the matter.
3. M.F.A. No. 2100 of 1983 had come up before us for hearing on 7-1-1986. On that day arguments were heard in part and the matter was adjourned for further hearing to 8-1-1986. On 8-1-1986 arguments of all the advocates appearing for all the parties were completed and an order was dictated to the Stenographer in the open Court dismissing the appeal. The transcript was prepared by the Stenographer and sent to us and before we signed it, it occured to us that the matter needed a second look. Before we signed the order, the learned Government Advocate Shri Hiremath submitted that he wanted to urge some more points of facts and of law and that he also wanted to argue regarding the question of the applicability of the Karnataka Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Government Advocate Shri Hiremath submitted that the points which he wanted to urge, were of general importance. He also submitted before us that the effect of the so called admission of a party needed to be considered. We also were of the opinion that the matter needed a second a look. Therefore before signing the transcript we, after hearing the advocates, recalled on 17-1-1986 the order dated 8-1-1986. Now the question that arises ‘is whether this Court has got the power to recall the order dictated by it to a Stenographer in the open Court before the transript is signed by us.
4. Order 20 Rule 1 C.P.C. reads as :–
The Court after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or 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 :
Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond, thirty 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 :
Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced 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 cut the whole judgment, but a copy of the whole judgment shall be made available for the perusal of the parties or the pleaders immediately after the judgment is pronounced.
(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.”
From this it becomes crystal clear that a simple dictation to a Stenographer by the Judge in the Court does not amount to a pronouncement of the judgment at all. The 3rd proviso to Order 20 Rule 1 C. P. C. makes it clear that if the judgment is dictated to a Stenographer in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such corrections 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. Therefore the judgment becomes a part of the record only after it is signed by the Judges. The dictation to a Stenographer is nothing but an indication of what is going on in the mind of the Judges while dictating the same. Therefore, a simple dictation to a “Stenographer does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of Order 20 Rule 1 C.P.C. and does not amount to the pronouncement of the judgment. That dictation after being transcribed by the Stenographer and after being corrected and even after being altered if necessary and after being signed by the Judges, would amount to a judgment and then alone it would amount to a pronouncement of the judgment. Once it is signed by the Judges, then the Judges have got very limited power to change the same. When once the judgment is signed by the Judges, the only mode in which it can be dealt with is only by way of review. Therefore the dictation made to a Stenographer in the open Court and the transcript prepared by the Stenographer are the properties of the Judges and they do not form part of the record until, the judgment is signed by the Judges.
5. The learned author Shri Mulla in his C. P. C., 14th Edition, Vol. II, on page 1282 has stated as :–
“The High Court of Allahabad has held in a case where the judgment was dictated in open Court that a judgment though so delivered can be changed even completely before it is signed provided notice is given to all parties concerned and they are heard before the change is made. A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court disagreed with that view and held that once a judgment has been pronounced or delivered in open Court, though formal corrections may be made before the Judge signs it, the core of it cannot be altered or changed so as to modify the order or amend or even set it at naught. A Division Bench of the same High Court has disagreed with this view and accepted the view of the Allahabad High Court.”
6. In A.I.R. Commentaries on the Civil Procedure Code, 9th Edition, Vol. III, on page 530, it is stated as :–
“Once an order has been pronounced in open Court it becomes final and operative though it can be altered, revised or set aside so long the Judge has not signed it after giving notice to the parties and a re-hearing on the point of change should that be necessary.”
7. The Supreme Court in Surendra Singh and Ors. v.State of Uttar Pradesh, has stated as :–
“A judgment is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal “pronouncement” or “delivery” in open Court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. The decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the Court as it is at the time of pronouncement. This is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the Court performs after the hearing. Everything else up till then is done out of Court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open Court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court. That is what constitutes the “jugdgment”.
Up to the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind. Therefore, however much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand, it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the Court. It follows that the Judge who ‘delivers’ the judgment, or causes it to be delivered by a brother Judge, must be in existence as a member of the Court at the moment of delivery so that he can, if necessary, stop delivery and say that he has changed his mind. There is no need for him to be physically present in Court but he must be in existence as a member of the Court and be in a position to stop delivery and effect an alteration should there be any last minute change of mind on his part.
Where, therefore, of the two Judges of the High Court who hear an appeal in a criminal case, one, purporting to write a joint judgment, perhaps a judgment, signs it and sends it to the other Judge but before it is delivered, dies, then the judgment, if delivered by the other Judge, is not a valid judgment.”
This clearly, goes to show that if a matter is heard by two Judges and even one of them signs a judgment, it does not amount to a pronouncement of a judgment at all till it is signed by the other Judge. Therefore the view that we have taken above gets support from the said Supreme Court decision. This matter received the fullest possible consideration at the hands of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The said Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court was delivered by Justice S. K. Verma and Justice W. Brooms and Justice B.D. Gupta. The said case is reported in Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Election Officer, Allahabad and Ors., . It reads as :–
“In Faulad v. State , a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of V.G. Oak and Kailash Prasad, JJ., took the view that until a judgment is signed and sealed after delivery in Court, it is not a judgment and it can be changed or altered at any time before it is signed and sealed. Another Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Jagdish Sahai and G.O. Mathur, JJ, doubted the correctness of the view taken in Faulad’s case, , and for this reason the latter Bench has referred the following question for decision by a Full Bench :
‘Whether, after a judgment has been orally dictated in open Court but before it is signed and sealed, it can be completely changed?”
The said Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has further stated as :–
“This question was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, . Their Lordships referring to Rules 1 to 4 of Chapter VII said this :-
“These rules provide for four different situations : (1) for judgments which are pronounced at once as soon as the case has been heard ; (2) for those which are pronounced on some future date ; (3) for judgments which are oral; and (4) for those which are written. These rules use the word ‘pronounced’ in some places and ‘delivered’ in others. Counsel tried to make capital out of this and said that a judgment had to be both ‘pronounced’ and ‘delivered’ and that they were two different things
We do not intend to construe these rules too technically because they are designed, as indeed are all rules, to further the ends of justice and must not be viewed too narrowly ; nor do we desire to curtail the jurisdiction which the Privy Council point out is inherent in Courts to make good inherent defects caused by accidents such as death.”
Perusual of this decision of the Supreme Court shows that their Lordships considered three different contingencies :
(1) a case in which arguments have been heard and judgment has been reserved and is pronounced at a later date ; (2) a case in which judgment is delivered in open Court after arguments have been heard but it has not been signed ; and (3) a case in which judgment has not only been delivered after hearing arguments but has also been transcribed and signed. As regards the first of the three contingencies mentioned above their Lordships observed as follows ;-
“Now, upto the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind. There is a sort of ‘locus paenitentiae’ and indeed, last minute alterations often do occur. Therefore, however much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand : it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the Court. Only then does it crystalise into a full fledged judgment and become operative,”
With regard to the second and the third contingencies mentioned above, their Lordships observed as follows :
“After the judgment has been delivered provision is made for review. One provision is that it can be freely altered or amended or even changed completely without further formality, except notice to the parties and a rehearing on the point of change should that be necessary, provided it has not been signed. Another is that after signature a review properly so-called would lie in civil cases but none in criminal ; but the review, when it lies, is only permitted on very narrow grounds. But in this case the mere fact that a Judge is dead and so cannot review his judgment does not affect the validity of the judgment which has already been delivered and has become effective. For this reason, there is a distinction between judgments which have not been delivered and so have not become operative and those which have. In the former case, the alteration is out of Court. It is not a judicial act. It is only part of a process of reaching a final conclusion ; also there is no formal public declaration of the Judges mind in open Court and consequently there is no ‘judgment’ which can be acted upon. But after delivery the alteration cannot be made without notice to the parties and the proceedings must take place in open Court, and if there is no alteration there is something which is final and conclusive and which can at once be acted upon. The difference is this. In the one case one cannot know, and it would be against public policy to enquire, whether the draft of a judgment is the final conclusion of the Judge or is only a tentative opinion subject to alteration and change. In the second case, the Judge has publicly declared his mind and cannot therefore change it without notice to the parties and without hearing them afresh when that is necessary ; and if there is no change the judgment continues in force. By change we mean an alteration of the decision and not merely the addition or subtraction of part of the reasoning.”
In our view, this decision of the Supreme Court furnishes a complete answer to the question referred to us. It makes it clear that there is power of ‘review’ both in cases where judgment has been delivered but not signed and cases in which judgment has been delivered, signed and sealed : in the former case the power to alter or amend or even to change completely is unlimited provided notice is given to the parties and they are heard before the proposed change is made, while in the latter case the power is limited and review is permitted only on very narrow grounds. We are, therefore, of the view that (supra) was rightly decided and our answer to the question referred to us is as follows :
“A judgment which has been orally dictated in open Court can be completely changed before it is signed and sealed provided notice is given to all parties concerned and they are heard before the change is made.”
8. Similar is the view taken in Ram Ralaya v. The Official Receiver, . Similar is the view taken in Chhotalal v. Vadilal, (1971) 12 Gujarat Law Reporter 850 (883) DB.
9. Therefore on consideration of the position of law and on consideration of the provisions relating to pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that a judgment which has been orally dictated in an open Court, can be completely changed before it is signed and sealed provided notice is given to all the parties concerned and they are heard before the change is made.
10. In this case also after we dictated the order on 8-1-1986 we heard the Government Pleader who wanted to make some submissions. We heard his submissions and we heard also the other side and after hearing all the advocates of all the parties, we recalled on 17-1-1986 the order dated 8-1-1986. This recall, in our opinion, is in consonance with the above Rule and decisions referred to by us and is in consonance with the inherent power of the Court which is meant to do justice to the parties. Therefore the oral dictation made to the Stenographer by us on 8-1-1986, does not amount to a judgment, because the transcript has not been signed by us at all. Therefore it is no judgment and it does not amount to a pronouncement of Judgment and thus it does not form part of the record and such a non-existing order could not be kept in the record at all.
11. Therefore the copy applications filed for obtaining the certified copies of such a non-existent order which does not form part of record, are rejected.