- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. This is an admitted category B writ petition of year 1979 arising out of proceedings before the consolidation authorities. As the things stand at present, this already to be listed for final hearing. Though listed for orders before this Bench the parties having agreed that the petition itself may be finally disposed of, consequently, learned counsel for both the parties have been heard on merit.
(2.) THE controversy in this petition is a very short one, whether a judgment dieted and thus delivered in open court would be rendered invalid and non-est, the Presiding Officer having died before authenticating the same by putting his signature. The proceedings started before the consolidation authorities by an objection about rival claim of title to 'land' having filed under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, appeal against which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the case remanded. A recall application was moved by the respondents before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who recalled the said order. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The arguments were heard by Shri Fateh Bahadur Singh the then Deputy Director (Con solidation), Gorakhpur. According to petitioner although an order was dictated but could pot be signed by the Presiding Officer who shortly thereafter died. As in pursuance of the said order the respondents tried to proceed with the case before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) the petitioner moved an application before the then Deputy Director (Consolidation) to re-hear and decide the matter. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) by the impugned order dated 2-6-1979 rejected the said application on the finding that the judgment was dictated and declared in open court though it was typed later. This fact was based also on a perusal of the shorthand notebook of the stenographer to late Shri Fateh Bahadur Singh. Accordingly, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) held the Revision to have been disposed of by a judgment rendered in open court by his predecessor Shri Fateh Bahadur Singh. The petitioner has impugned the order of D. D. C. on the plea that a judgment becomes operative and has the effect of concluding and finally disposing of a proceeding, only when the Judge/presiding Officer puts his signature on the same. Merely because a verdict is dictated in open court, but not authenticated and the Presiding Officer subsequently dying, the judgment being incapable being signed, it would not amount to a judgment. This contention has no basis in law. Once a judgment is dictated in open court, finally deciding the controversy and concluding the proceedings, merely because the formal act of authentication or signing could not be done and the Judge becomes unavailable, due to death or any other un avoidable reason, to sign it the judgment does not cease to be a judgment in the eyes of law. The following observation of their Lordships of the Priviy Council in Firm Gokul Chand v. Firm Nand Ram, AIR 1938 PC 292, is quite illustrative on this point: "the Rule does not say that if its requirements are not complied with the judgment shall be a nullity. So starting a result would need clear and precise words. Indeed the Rule does not even state any definite time in which it is to be fulfilled. The time is left to be defined by what is reasonable. The Rule, from its very nature is not intended to affect the rights of parties to a judgment. It is intended to secure certainty in the ascertainment of what the judgment was. It is a rule which Judges are require to comply with for that object. No doubt in practice Judges do so comply, as it is their duty to do. But accidents may happen. A Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it. The Court must have inherent jurisdiction to supply such a defect. The case of a Judge who has gone on leave before signing the judgment may call for more comment, but even so the convenience of the Court and the interest of litigants must prevail. The defect is merely an irregularity. But in truth the difficulty is disposed of by Sections 99 and 108, Civil Proce dure Code. "
(3.) THE principles in this regard have also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1954 SC 194' (Para 14), wherein it is laid down that: "as soon as the judgment is delivered, that becomes the operative pronouncement of the Court. THE law then provides for the manner in which it is to be authenticated and made certain. THE rules regarding this differ but they do not form the essence of the matter and if there is irregularity in carrying them out it is curable. Thus, if a judgment happens not to be signed and is in advertently acted on and executed, the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good despite defects in the mode of its subsequent authentication. " The contention of the learned counsel raised on behalf of the petitioner that the principles aforesaid will not apply to the present case, the proceedings before the consolidation authorities not being governed by Code of Civil Procedure, is also unsustainable. Irrespective of whether a proceeding is governed by Code of Civil Procedure or any other special enactment, the fact remains that when a judgment is dictated and rendered in open court, merely because during the period it was transcribed the Presiding Officer died, and it could not be signed the judgment would not be invalid or nonest.;