HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision has been filed against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 24-12-54 dismissing the appeal of the applicant on the ground that it was not accompanied by a copy of the lower appellate court.
(2.) AS the applicant was unrepresented before us we have gone through the record ourselves and have also heard the counsel for the parties. The applicant presented a memorandum of appeal against the appellate order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur,before the Additional Commissioner on 20-9-54. It was accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment but not of the decree appealed against. The appeal was admitted and an order was passed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 29-9-54 that a notice be issued to the parties and the appellant be asked to submit a copy of the decree of the lower appellate court on the next date of hearing. It appears that the substance of this order was not conveyed to the applicant and an ordinary notice was issued to him to present himself on the fixed date to argue his case on 24-12-54. When the appeal came up for hearing before the learned Additional Commissioner he dismissed the appeal on the ground that although the lower appellate court had not yet prepared the decree yet "It think that it was the duty of the appellant to have asked the Collector to prepare the decree. The appellant has been keeping silence on this point although he should have realised that he was bound by law to produce a copy of the Collector's decree along with the memorandum of appeal or at a subsequent date with the permission of this court. We have no hesitation in holding that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is clearly erroneous and untenable. It is obvious from the record that the learned Additional Commissioner on 29-9-54 decided to allow the applicant an opportunity to produce a copy of the decree of the lower appellate court and that this decision was never conveyed to the applicant. It was therefore, wrong on the part of the learned Additional Commissioner to have dismissed the appeal without given an opportunity to the applicant to produce a copy of the decree as had been decided by him on a previous date. Rule 52 of the Rules made under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, clearly lays down that on judgment a decree shall follow. This provision is analogous to sec. 33 of the C. P. C. which reads as under: - "The court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such judgment a decree shall follow." This section casts on the court a duty of preparing and passing a decree. A party or his pleader is under no obligation to move the court to draw up a decree. AS has been held in A.I.R. 1919 Lahore 125, the court may in such cases allow an adjournment for getting a copy of the decree prepared and filing the same. In the present case we find that the Additional Collector has not yet prepared the decree and that the learned Additional Commissioner had decided on that ground to allow an opportunity to the applicant to obtain a copy the decree and produce it before him, which he could do only by first moving the court of the Additional Collector to prepare a decree which it had omitted to do in spite of a legal obligation being cast upon it. The opportunity thus given by one hand was denied by the other, which was clearly unjustifiable. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case back to it with the direction that adequate opportunity be given to the applicant to produce a certified copy of the decree and then the case be proceeded further in accordance with law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.