- (1.) THIS appeal was heard by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, Sinha and Wanchoo jj. , on 10-11-1947. At the close of the hearing, judgment was dictated in open Court by the learaed Judges. In the result, the appeal was allowed, the decrees of the courts below were set aside and the claim of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed with costs. Before the transcript of the judgment was signed by the learned Judges, it appears that the case was 'mentioned' to the learned Judges with the result that the transcript was not signed by either of the two learned judges. On the contrary, at appears that at the stage of signing the transcript either one or both the learned Judges felt the necessity of having some points further clarified by further arguments from counsel. Thus on 9-12-1947, as the "order sheet" shows, some arguments were heard but they were not finished, and it was ord Ted that the case might be listed again after a week for further arguments. After this stage, it appears the case was never listed agai b fore the learned judges concerned. Meanwhile various other proceedings such as applications for substitution of names on account of successive deaths of various respondents were held and quite a lot of time appears to have been taken up by these proceedings. In this interval both the learned Judges ceased to be Judges of this Court. The appeal has now been listed before us for hearing and final disposal.
(2.) MR. Johari, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that, as a result of what happened on 10-11-1947, the appeal must be deemed to have been heard and finally disposed of, there is, therefore, according to the argument of the learned counsel, appeal to be heard and disposed of by this Bench. Mr. Verma, the learned counsel for the respon-dents, on the other hand, has contended that the transcript of the judgment, which was dictated orally in Court at the close of the hearing of the appeal on 10-11-1947, was never approved of, or signed, by the learned Judges who heard the case. The argument of the learned coun-sel is that, according to law, a judgment of the High Court in a 'civil case' like the present, is rot complete until it is signed by the learned Judges who hear the case. It is contended, therefore, that the present appeal cannot be considered to have been decided by this Court. Learned counsel, in the course of their arguments, brought to our notice, quite a number of rulings of various Courts in India including our own. We shall examine the relevant rulings a little later. Here it may be stated at once that most of the rulings cited by learned counsel are rulings given in criminal cases. The provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are very different from those contained in the Code of criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, clear that rulings given in criminal cases are not of much use and do not give any direct help in deciding the question when it arises in connection with a civil case. We shall now proceed to consider the more important rulings to which our attention has been invited.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance upon the decision given in the case of --'pragmadho Singh v. Emperor', AIR 1933 All 40 (A) decided by Sulaiman, C. J. What happened in that case was this : Certain criminal cases were heard and judgments in them were dictated in open court by a learned Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice L. M. Banerji. The judgments were taken down by the judgment-writer, but the transcript remained unsigned owing to the death of the Learned Judge. After the death of the learned Judge the office brought this fact to the notice of the Chief Justice for directions. The learned Chief Justice considered the question with reference to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held : "there is no provision which requires that the High Court, after pronouncing a judgment in open court, should date and sign the same. The criminal appeals disp sed of by a Judge of the High court by the delivery ot judgment in open court and taken down by his Judgment Writer must be deemed to have been finally disposed of by him; the omission to initial the fair copy of the judgment is in no way a serious defect. ";