N.N.MITHAL, J. - (1.) By means of this petition the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent for making payment of the amount due for the life insurance policy taken by the deceased Lalit Kumar Kohli on 15/06/1982. At the time of filing the petition Sri R.G. Padia appeared on behalf of respondent and he was granted a month's time to file counter-affidavit- Thereafter on 6th of Feb., 1991 again further three weeks time was granted to the respondent to file counter-affidavit. When the matter was taken up on 6-3-91 Sri R. G. Padia, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that despite his writing letters to the respondent there was no response. In the circumstances we proceeded to hear the petition in the absence of counter-affidavit and dictated the order in Court allowing the same. Before the order was signed some doubt about the maintainability of the petition arose in our mind and therefore, we did not sign the order and directed the office to list the petition again for hearing to clarify the doubts in our mind. This is how the petition has again been listed for hearing before us.
(2.) Before we consider the controversy raised on merits we would like to dispose of an objection taken by the petitioner on the propriety of re-hearing of the petition by the Court. The petitioner's submission is that having once dictated the order in open Court allowing the petition, the Court has no right to go back upon its order and re-hear the petition. In support he has relied on c AIR 1988 SC 371.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties both on this preliminary question as also on the merits of the case at length. As for the preliminary objection it need not detain us much. There cannot be any disagreement with the principles set out in that decision and we agree entirely that an order dictated in open Court should normally be adhered to. But this cannot be laid down as inviolable rule. If the Court finds, before such an order is signed by it, that there is something which needs clarification or some doubt arises as to the correctness of the view taken due to, say, for example, some decided case of the Supreme Court on the point involved, coming to its notice, the court is not bound to stick to its view merely because the order had been dictated in open Court. Certainly, this should not be done without affording an opportunity to the counsel for the parties but when parties are again heard and have had the opportunity to remove the doubts entertained by the Court, then in our judgment there is no impropriety even if the Courts were to change its earlier view. The question in such cases is not of Court's jurisdiction in varying the order but merely of procedure that should be followed which ought to be dictated by reason and be fair and not in denial of opportunity of hearing to them. Even in the judgment relied upon the Supreme Court has observed thus : "Rule 3 of S. 20, Civil P.C. permits alterations or additions to a judgment so long as it is not signed. It is only after the judgment is both pronounced and signed that alterations or additions are not permissible, except under the provisions of S. 152 or S. 114 of the Civil P.C. or, in very exceptional cases, under S. 151 of the Civil P.C. But, while the Court has undoubted power to alter or modify a judgment delivered but not signed, such power should be exercised judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons. When a judgment is pronounced in open Court, the parties act on the basis that it is the judgment of the Court and that the signing is a formality to follow. Ordinarily judgment is not delivered till the hearing is complete by listening to submission of counsel and perusal of records and a definite view is reached by the Court in regard to the conclusion. Once the stage is reached and the Court pronounces the judgment the same should not be reopened unless there be some exceptional circumstance or a review is asked for and is granted. When the judgment is pronounced, parties present in the Court know the conclusion in the matter and often on the basis of such pronouncement they proceed to conduct their affairs. If what is pronounced in Court is not acted upon, certainly litigants would be prejudiced. Confidence of the litigant in the judicial office would be shaken. A judgment pronounced in open Court should be acted upon unless there be some exceptional feature and if there be any such, the same should appear from the record of the case".;