Belgees Begum vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others

These two writ petitions have been posted before me for orders.

These matters arise in the following circumstances:--

These two writ petitions along with Seven Civil Revision Petitions raise a common point. These matters were heard by late G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, J. It is admitted before me by counsel on either side that their arguments were heard by the learned Judge and judgments in both the writ petitions were dictated in open Court to the Court Master on 4-11-1993 and 6-11-1993 respectively. But before they were transcribed and placed before the learned Judge for singnature, the learned Judge unfortunately passed away.

The Registrar (Judl.) verified and also recorded the statements of the Court Officers, who attended the Court on the respective dates, and found that the Judgments were dictated in open Court to the Court-master by the learned Judge on the respective dates, but by the time they were transcribed and placed before the learned Judge for signature, the learned Judge Passed away on 7-11-1993. As stated above, the counsel on either side who appeared before the learned Judge and argued the matters also admitted that the cases were argued and the learned Judge after hearing the arguments dictated the Judgments to Court-master in open Court.

The important question that arises, in the circumstances, is with regard to the validity of the Judgment dictated in open Court to the Court Master by a learned Judge who died before signing the same.

The relevant provision, which has a bearing on the question, is Rule 24 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 made by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said rule is to the effect that :--

"All other rules, relating to causes and matters coming before the Original Side and Appellate Side of the High Court and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will apply to the Writ Petition''s and the Writ Appeals in so far as they are not inconsistent with the rules."

The rules relating to the method and manner of pronouncing the judgments and the requirements of dating and signing the judgments are provided for under Order XX, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of C.P.C. So far as the appeals are concerned, the relevant provisions are provided under Order XLI, Rules 30 and 31 of C.P.C. Since we are dealing with the writ petitions, the relevant rules under Order XX are extracted below for convenience to the extent they are material for the purpose of the present discussion :-

"JUDGEMNT WHEN PRONOUNCED:

1.(1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, or 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 xxx xxx Provided further xxx xxx (2)..... (3) The Judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a short-hand-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.

.....

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."

The provisions of C.P.C. referred to above were the subject matter of the consideration in number of cases. M.N. Rao, J. had to consider a case arising in similar circumstances in Writ Petition No. 1205 of 1990 dated 16-4-1990. In the said case, the Presiding Officer of Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, heard the arguments on 24-8-1989 in M.P. No. 1 of 1985 in I.D. No. 8 of 1975 as to the validity of the domestic enquiry and reserved orders. Later, on 24-10-1989, a docket order was passed by the Presiding Officer in the following terms :-

"The domestic enquiry is held invalid. Vide separate orders. For respondent''s evidence posted to 22-1-1990."

The docket order was signed by the Presiding Officer. But before the main separate order was signed, he died. The Successor Officer issued a notice on 3-11-1989 to the parties to appear on 6-11-1989, on which day the successor Presiding Officer passed an order that since the order dated 24-10-1990 was not signed by the then Presiding Officer, it is not a valid one. Questioning the said order, writ, petition was filed in this Court, which was disposed of by M.N. Rao, J. on 16-4-1990. The learned Judge relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University and Others, held that the order of the then Presiding Officer dated 24-10-1989, though not signed since it was pronounced in open Court, it is a valid order and on that ground, the Writ petition was allowed.

The Rajasthan High Court had an occasion to consider a case, the facts of which are almost identical with the facts in these two matters, in Smt. Basanti Devi and Others Vs. Abdul Sattar and Others, . A Second Appeal filed by one Heeranand was heard by J. P. Jain, J. and at the close of the hearing, the learned Judge dictated the Judgment to a Short-hand-writer (Court Master) in open Court on 10-9-1975 in the presence of the counsel appearing for both the parties and dismissed the appeal. Before the Judgment, which was dictated in open Court to the Court Master, was transcribed and signed by the learned Judge, unfortunately the learned Judge expired.

The legal representatives of the appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal, filed an application to declare that the Judgment pronounced by J.P. Jain, J. is not a judgment in the eye of Law, in view of the fact that the same was not signed by the learned Judge and that the second appeal should be deemed to be still pending and required to be heard once again. The said application was dealt with by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The argument therein was that so long as the typed transcript was not signed by the learned Judge though dictated in open Court to a Court master (short-hand-writer) the judgment is an ineffective one. The said argument was repelled by the Division Bench. The learned Judges of the Division Bench referred to the Judgment fo the Privy Council reported in AIR 1938 292 (Privy Council) , which stated that :--

"None of the provisions of the CPC including Rules 30 and 31 of Order 41 and Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Order 20 lays down that non-compliance of any of its provisions shall result in invalidating the judgment dictated and pronounced in open court and not signed by the Judge."

The learned Judges of the Privy Counsel in the said Judgment clearly stated that a Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it and that it is a mere irregularity and the Court has inherent jurisdiction to supply a defect or irregularity. Relying upon the said Judgment and also other judgments cited before the learned Judges, the learned Judges of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court stated that the judgment dictated by late J.P. Jain, J. in open Court in the presence of the parties is a valid judgment, eventhough the typed transcript of the judgment could not be signed by the learned Judge.

Therefore, in my opinion, a judgment, which was dictated and pronounced in open Court after hearing the arguments, in the presence of the counsel, is a valid, effective and operative judgment, eventhough the learned Judge dies before signing the same. Therefore, the judgments dictated in open Court by late G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, J. in these two writ petitions on 4-11-1993 and 6-11-1993 respectively are valid, effective and operative as any other judgment, which is signed by the Judge.

The Supreme Court also had an occasion consider the provisions of Order XX, Rule 3, C.P.C. in supra. In the said case, the writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking admission into the Masters Course in Law for the academic year 1983-84 was heard by a Division Bench of the said Court. After the hearing was concluded, the learned Judges of the Division Bench dictated a Judgment in the open Court allowing the writ petition and a direction was issued to the University to admit the petitioner therein. The Writ Petitioner applied for a copy of the judgment, but he was told that the matter was again listed for hearing and will be heard afresh. Though originally, this case was listed before the very same Division Bench, which rendered the judgment, subsequently by an order of the very same Division Bench, it was deleted from its list and posted before another Division Bench. The other Division Bench, before which the writ petition came up for hearing, dismissed the same. The writ petitioner questioned the judgment of the second Division Bench on the ground that judgment once pronounced in open Court by the first Division Bench became operative even without signature of the learned Judges and cannot be altered thereafter and that the judgment of the second Division Bench is unsustainable. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the second Division Bench and held that the judgment of the first Division Bench, which was dictated in open Court to the Court Master, though not signed, is a valid and effective one. In the said context, the learned Judges after referring exhaustively to the observations of the Supreme Court reported in Surendra Singh and Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, stated as follows :--

"When a Judgment is pronounced in open Court, parties act on the basis that it is the judgment of the Court and that the signing is a formality to follow."

The learned Judges further observed as follows:

"That would mean that the Judgment to be operative does not await signing thereof by the Court."

To a similar effect is the Judgment of the Supreme Court supra. In the said case, a Division Bench consisting of Kidwai and Bhargava, JJ. heara the arguments in a Criminal Appeal on 11-12-1952 and reserved the judgment. Before it could be delivered, Justice Bhargava, J. was shifted to Allahabad from Lucknow. While at Allahabad, Bhargava, J. dictated a judgment treating it to be a judgment of both and signed on every page of the Judgment as well as at the end and sent it to Kidwai, J. at Lucknow. On 24-12-1952, before the Judgment wqs delivered, Bhargava, J. passed away. However, on 5-1-1953, Kidwai, J. delivered the Judgment at Luck-now and signed it and put the dated as well. A question arose as to whether the Judgment was a valid one since by the time it was delivered, Bhargava, J. died. It is not a case where the Judgment was pronounced in open Court. While considering the said question, Bose, J. who spoke for the Supreme Court stated as follows at Page 196; of AIR :

"In our opinion, a Judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in the open Court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there; that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague, All the rest -- the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainity about its content and matter -- can be cured; but not the hard core, namely the formal intimation of the decision and its content for ally declared in a judicial way in open Court."

These Judgments clearly establish that the dictation in open Court or the formal expression of the Court to a Court master in the Judicial act. The other acts, which follow viz., transcribing, signing and sealing, are all formal acts made to authenticate the Judgment. All these defects viz., defects in authentication including signing of the Judgment, can be cured.

For the reasons mentioned above and in view of the Judgments referred to above, I declare that the Judgments dictated in open Court to the Court Master by late G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, J. in the above writ petitions are valid, effective and operative, though not signed, as any other effective Judgment signed by a Judge. Ordered accordingly.

The Judgments in the above two writ petitions can be authenticated by the High Court by putting the seal in the said Judgments and initialled by the competent authority which usually authenticates the seal of the High Court.

Order accordingly.