VIJENDER JAIN,J - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the above mentioned writ petition and civil revision as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.
(2.) SHRI S.S. Bhardwaj, Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh got embroiled in a controversy in the year 2003 and was placed under suspension. He is presently facing prosecution. On the basis of some information, more than 125 files were recovered from the staff attached to him in which judgments/orders/zimni orders were dictated/typed but were not signed by the Judicial Officer. A list of such cases was forwarded to this Court by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Taking cognizance of the same, the then Chief Justice ordered listing of the matter on judicial side and C.W.P. No. 14522 of 2005 is the outcome thereof. The civil suit of the petitioner in C.R. No. 5853 of 2004 was being adjudicated upon by Shri S.S. Bhardwaj, who, during its trial, passed an order dated 28.4.2003, but could not sign the same before his suspension. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court of Shri S.K. Singla, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, who passed an order in the suit on 12.11.2003, which is as follows : "Heard. File perused. The order on the application u/section 8 of the Arbitration Act was passed on 28.4.03. Both the detailed and interim order are typed but these have not been signed by Shri S.S. Bhardwaj, then CJ(JD), Ch. Perusal of order 20 rule 2 provides that judgment which has been written by predecessor but not pronounced is to be pronounced by the successor. However, as per order dt. 28.4.03, the order was already pronounced but have not been signed. The reference has already been made to ld. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Chd. And many cases have been received by transfer due to suspension of Sh. S.S. Bhardwaj. Once the reference has been made, the order dt. 28.4.03, cannot be pronounced nor further proceedings can be taken until the order is received from ld. Distt. and Sessions Judge. Therefore, the application of plaintiff for proceeding with the case is hereby declined. File be put up on 29.1.03, date already fixed." The petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid order be set aside and the order which had been pronounced by Shri Bhardwaj on 28.4.2003 should be made operative as it was announced in open Court and mere non-signing thereof would not make any difference to its being effective.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.;