CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2551 of 2001 PETITIONER: K.V. Rami Reddi RESPONDENT: Prema DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the Civil
Revision petition filed highlighting the irregularities committed
by the learned Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai
while pronouncing the judgment in O.S. No. 584 of 1996. The
controversy in the suit need not be detailed, as the points in
issue in the present appeal lie within a very narrow compass.
3. The Suit was filed by the present respondent for specific
performance to enforce a sale agreement dated 20.10.1988.
The suit is stated to have been decided on 24.03.1999.
According to the present respondent, who was the petitioner in
the Civil Revision petition, even without dictating the
judgment to the Stenographer, transcribing and signing the
same, simply an endorsement in the plaint docket sheet was
made to the effect that the plaintiff in the suit was not entitled
to the relief of specific performance to enforce a sale agreement
but was entitled to refund of Rs.2,00,000/-. Stand in the
revision petition was that there was no judgment in the eye of
law. It was pointed out that only the operative portion was
dictated on 25.03.1999 during lunch time and, therefore, the
decision rendered on 24.03.1999 was non est in the eye of law
and a nullity. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
in the Civil Revision petition i.e. the present appellant took the
stand that four issues and an additional issue had been
framed. The entire judgment had been dictated by learned
Single Judge and the transcribed part covered the vital issues
1 to 3 and the Stenographer was half way through the fourth
issue and the additional issue. Therefore, it was submitted
that a reasonable inference should be drawn that all the
issues had been dictated to the stenographer and on the date
the judgment was pronounced, i.e. 24.03.1999, the judgment
must be deemed to have been completed. Learned Single
Judge did not find substance in the stand taken by the
present appellant. It was held that since the learned Trial
Judge had not completed the judgment before he delivered his
decision, it has to be held that there was no judgment in the
eye of law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition was allowed
and judgment dated 24.03.1999 was set aside and the matter
was remitted to the present Seventh Assistant City Civil
Judge, Chennai who was to hear the arguments afresh and
render a decision.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
course adopted by learned City Civil Judge is permissible in
law in the background of Order XX, Rule-5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (in short `the CPC’).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the Trial Judge has not decided the matter in
the background of Order XX, Rule 5, CPC. On the contrary,
the provisions of Order XX, Rules-1 and 3 apply to the facts of
the case.
6. Order XX, Rule-1 (1) of the CPC (Madras Amendment)
reads as follows:
“(1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall
pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on
some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders.
(2) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation to a
shorthand-writer in open court, where the presiding
Judge has been specially empowered in that behalf by the
High Court.”
Similarly, Order XX, Rule 3 reads as follows:
“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.”
7. Order XX, Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid by
learned counsel for the appellant says that in Suits in which
issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or
decision with the reason therefor, upon each separate issue,
unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is
sufficient for the decision of the Suit.
8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent, this was not the view expressed by the learned
Trial Judge.
9. The ultimate question is whether in the instant case the
judgment has been validly delivered? If it is a mere procedural
irregularity and the Judge concerned had not signed the
judgment, then the judgment thus rendered cannot be in-
validated. Order XX Rule 1 CPC postulates that after the case
has been heard, the court hearing the same shall pronounce
the judgment in open court by dictation to the shorthand
writer, wherever it is permissible. It bears the date on which
it is pronounced. The date of the judgment is never altered by
the date on which the signature has been put subsequently.
The mere fact that a major portion has been dictated by the
learned Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by
itself, lead to the conclusion that the judgment had been
delivered.
10. In Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh Vs. Harendra Kumar
Banerjee and Anr. (AIR 1969 SC 1167), it was inter-alia held
as follows (at Para 6):
“Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to
achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court,
a judicial determination between the contesting parties of
the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties
interested in the dispute to present their respective cases
on question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts
by means of evidence tendered by the parties and
adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon
a finding on the facts in controversy and application of
the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a
judicial trial. In a judicial trial, the judge not only must
reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless
otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by
law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading
from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination
of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or
fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported
by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to
the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute
not supported by reasons is no judgment at all.
Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a
disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is
intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of
whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in
contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the
matter according to law and the procedure established by
law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know
the grounds on which the Court has decided against him,
and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal.
The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on
which it may determine whether the facts are properly
ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the
resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate that the
learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support
of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely
recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had
sufficiently proved the case in the plant.”
11. The declaration by a Judge of his intention of what his
`judgment’ is going to be, or a declaration of his intention of
what final result it is going to embody, is not a judgment until
he had crystallized his intentions into a formal shape and
pronounced it in open court as the final expression of his
mind.
12. The CPC does not envisage the writing of a judgment
after deciding the case by an oral judgment and it must not be
resorted to and it would be against public policy to ascertain
by evidence alone what the `judgment’ of the Court was, where
the final result was announced orally but the `judgment’, as
defined in the CPC embodying a concise statement of the case,
the points for determination, the decision thereon and the
reasons for such decision, was finalized later on.
13. Section 2(9) of the CPC defines a “judgment” to mean the
statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or
order.
14. In Balraj Taneja and Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan and Anr.
(1999 (8) SCC 396), it was inter-alia held as follows:
“There is yet another infirmity in the case which
relates to the “judgment” passed by the single Judge and
upheld by the Division Bench.
“Judgment” as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of
Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge
of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment
should contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4(2) which
says that a judgment “shall contain a concise statement
of the case, the points for determination, the decision
thereon, and the reasons for such decision”. It should be
a self-contained document from which it should appear
as to what were the facts of the case and what was the
controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court
and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which
the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed
the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.”
15. Undisputedly, the Trial Judge had not completed the
judgment before he delivered his decision. That being so, the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to
warrant interference. What the High Court has directed is to
hear only the arguments afresh. While dismissing the appeal,
we direct that the arguments shall be heard afresh and the
Trial Court shall deliver its judgment as early as practicable,
preferably within three months from today. To avoid
unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the Trial
Court on 05.03.2008 so that the date for arguments can be
fixed.
