P.P. Bhatt, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Petition No. 35/2012 whereby the petition filed under Section 24, C.P.C. has been disposed of without granting relief(s) as sought for by the petitioner. The brief facts and the case is that: - (i) The petitioner was a Pilot under Civil Aviation Department, Government of India and on requisition his service was placed to TISCO for flying aircraft of TATA Iron and Steel Company. The petitioner's service was terminated by letter dated 25.09.2006 bearing No. -AOC/HRS/0566/06 alleging that he was responsible for the accident of the aircraft dated 26.04.2006. (ii) That being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2006 the petitioner instituted a Title Suit No. 90 of 2006 before the learned Sub -Judge I, Jamshedpur praying the following relief(s): (a) For a decree for declaration that the termination of the plaintiff is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and is liable to be set aside and the letter dated 25.9.06 cannot be given effect to. (b) For that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy all the emoluments attached to his salary including his quarter till the disposal of this suit. (c) For the cost of this suit. (d) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled under the law and equity. (iii) That the respondents also filed a complaint case being CI Case No. 139 of 2006 on 29.11.2006 under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the copy of the said complaint is also annexed to this petition vide Annex -ure -2. The prayer clauses of the said complaint are as follows: (a) That the cognizance may please be taken and process may please be issued against the Accused according to law for prosecution u/S. 630 of the Companies Act. (b) The accused may be ordered to deliver the vacant possession of the premises allotted to him within the period specified by Your Honour and be punished according to law for such offence.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that; (i) the petitioner has challenged the termination order passed in Title Suit No. 90 of 2006 by the respondent authorities. The prayer clause (b) of the petition, it is prayed that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy all the emoluments attached to his salary including his quarter till the disposal of this suit and on the other hand, in the complaint case filed by the respondent i.e. C -1 Case No. 139 of 2006, the prayer was made to the effect that the accused may be ordered to deliver the vacant possession of the premises allotted to him within the period specified by the Court and also for inflicting the punishment according to law for such offence. (ii) That after filing of C -1 Case No. 139 of 2006, W.P.(Cr.) was moved by the respondents. The petitioner was not made party in WP(Cr.) No. 292 of 2012 (Annexure -3) and the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before giving the direction as contained in order dated 23.11.12 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. In the said order dated 23.11.12, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that the trial court shall comply with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 104 of 2012 and the accused shall cooperate in the trial so that the trial is expeditiously concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as it was ex parte order. The cause title of the order indicates that the matter was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State Government which is a formal party. The necessary party i.e. present petitioner was not called upon or given any opportunity before passing of the order. Thus in the said proceeding opportunity was not given at any point of time before such order was passed. (iii) By referring Annexure -4 i.e. Civil Misc. Petition No. 35/12, filed before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur, it is pointed out that the petitioner has tried to justify his case before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur by showing valid reason for transfer of title suit in a court where the complaint Case No. 139/2006 is pending. In the said application, the petitioner also pointed out about the subject -matter of the title suit vis -a -vis the subject -matter of the complaint case filed under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the prayer made with regard to retention of quarters and payment of all the emoluments attached to his post. By referring to the order dated 19.12.12 (Annexure -5 to this petition), it is submitted that the learned court below has not assigned any reason whatsoever while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC and passed the order that the complaint case No. 139 of 2006 relates to the offence committed u/S. 630 of the Companies Act and it is exclusively triable by the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences and the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) -I Jamshedpur, is running court, therefore, it is better to the petitioner to approach both the courts for quick disposal of the cases. (iv) The averments made in the present petition are not denied by the respondent authorities by filing any counter -affidavit and more so, specifically paras 12, 17, 18 and 20 of this petition are also not replied or controverted by the respondent authorities by way of filing any affidavit. (v) The interlocutory application being LA. No. 5335 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court to bring certain important facts and grounds to the notice of this Court so that it can be considered by the Hon'ble Court in its proper perspective as the same could not be placed before this Hon'ble court at the time of hearing on 22.8.2014. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents are not inclined to file any counter -affidavit in respect of the claim made by the petitioner as the question of law, which is involved in the present proceeding has already been highlighted. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred the interlocutory application, which is filed basically for the purpose of vacating the order of stay, granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Ganesh Roy v. State of Jharkhand, reported in : 2004 (2) JCR 443 (Jhr.) and submitted that both the proceedings in question are different and distinct in nature. Therefore the application, filed under Section 24, CPC before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur was dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned court below has rightly and properly disposed of Civil Misc. Petition No. 35/2012. Learned counsel for the respondents also put emphasis and drew attention upon the application filed under Section 630 of the Companies Act and submitted that the proceedings are summary in nature and the learned court below was about to pass the order. At present, the petitioner is prolonging the said proceedings by filing an application under Section 24, CPC as well as the petition filed before this Court and therefore, this petition may not be entertained and allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents by filing rejoinder to I.A. No. 5335/2014, submitted that the said interlocutory application is not maintainable in eyes of law as this Court after hearing the parties dictated the order.
(3.) SO far the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that once a judgment was dictated in the open court the same become final and conclusive, the issue in this regard is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex court in various pronouncements held that unless and until the judgment is signed and sealed after delivery in the court, it is not a judgment and the same can be changed at any time. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Surendra singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in : AIR 1954 SC 194 in paras 10 to 12 held as under: "10. In our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in open Court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there; that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it he vague. All the rest - the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainly about its content and matter - can be cured; but not the hard core, namely the formal intimation of the decision and its contents formally declared in a judicial way in open Court. The exact way in which this is done does not matter. In some Courts the judgment is delivered orally or read out, in some only the operative portion is pronounced, in some the judgment is merely signed after giving notice to the parties and laying the draft on the table for a given number of days for inspection. 11. An important point therefore arises. It is evident that the decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the Court as it is at the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the mode or manner of delivery, as that is not of the essence, except to say that it must be done in a judicial way in open Court. But however it is done it must be an expression of the mind of the Court at the time of delivery. We say this because that is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the Court performs after the hearing. Everything else up till then is done out of Court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. Judges may and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgment either, however heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open Court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court. That is what constitutes the "judgment". 12. Now up to the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind. There is a sort of 'locus poenitentiae' and indeed last minute alterations often do occur. Therefore, however much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand, it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the Court only then does it crystallise into a full -fledged judgment and become operative. It follows that the Judge who "delivers" the judgment, or causes it to be delivered by a brother Judge, must be in existence as a member of the Court at the moment of delivery so that he can, if necessary, stop delivery and say that he has changed his mind. There is no need for him to be physically present in court but he must be in existence as a member of the Court and be in a position to stop delivery and effect an alteration should there be any last minute change of mind on his part. If he hands in a draft and signs it and indicates that he intends that to be the final expository of his views it can be assumed that those are still his views at the moment of delivery if he is alive and in a position to change his mind but takes no steps to arrest delivery. But one cannot assume that he would not have changed his mind if he is no longer in a position to do so. A Judge's responsibility is heavy and when a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture; also, a question of public policy is involved. As we have indicated, it is frequently the practice to send a draft, sometimes a signed draft, to a brother Judge who also heard the case. This may be merely for his information, or for consideration and criticism. The mere signing of the draft does not necessarily indicate a close mind. We feel it would be against public policy to leave the door open for an investigation whether a draft sent by a Judge was intended to embody his final and unalterable opinion or was only intended to be a tentative draft sent with an unwritten understanding that he is free to change his mind should fresh light drawn upon him before the delivery of judgment." In the case of Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, reported in : AIR 1988 SC 371 the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 6 & 7 held as under: "6. The above observations were made, as already mentioned, in a case where the judgment had been signed but not pronounced in the open court in the present case, we are concerned with a judgment that had been pronounced but not signed. The provision in O. 20. R. 3 of the Civil P.C. indicates the position in such cases. It permits alterations or additions to a judgment so long as it is not signed. This is also apparently what has been referred to in the last paragraph of the extract from the judgment of Bose, J. quoted above, where it has been pointed out that a judgment which has been delivered "can be freely altered or amended or even changed completely without further formality, except notice to the parties and rehearing on the point of change, should that be necessary, provided it has not been 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." "7 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, parties act on the basis that it is the judgment of the Court and that the signing is a formality to follow." In a recent judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in : (2014) 9 SCC 124 : (AIR 2014 SC 2291), in para 10 held as under: 10. In Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, while dealing with the rent control matter, the Court came to the conclusion that until a judgment is signed and sealed after delivering in court, it is not a judgment and it can be changed or altered at any time before it is signed and sealed.";