BASANTI DEVI Vs. ABDUL SATTAR
LAWS(RAJ)-1976-4-20
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on
April 21,1976
BASANTI DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL SATTAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]FIRM GOKAL CHAND JAGAN NATH VS. FIRM NAND RAM DAS-ATMA RAM [REFERRED TO]
Sangam Lal VS. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and others [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ANAND RAM VS. A K JAIN [LAWS(J&K)-1998-7-3] [REFERRED TO]ANAND RAM VS. A K JAIN [LAWS(J&K)-1999-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL KUMARI VS. NANDU RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2002-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
B AUDISESHAIAH VS. P VENKATA SUBBAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1994-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
BELGEES BEGUM VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1994-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
GEM TRAVELS VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(KAR)-1994-8-38] [REFFERED TO]
BAI DHULI WD O NARSIBHAI CHHOTALAL VS. BAI ICHHA [LAWS(GJH)-1983-2-13] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
Modi, J. -
(1.)This is an application made on behalf of Smt. Basanti Devi and her minor son Prahlad under Order 20, Rule 3, Civil P. C. and Rule 88 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Section 151, Civil P. C.
(2.)The facts which have given rise to this application may be shortly stated. Hiranand filed a second appeal in this Court under Section 100, Civil P. C. against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated February 27, 1973. This appeal was registered as S. B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 187 of 1973. It came up for hearing before the Hon'ble J.P. Jain, J. At the close of the hearing, the learned Judge dictated the judgment, to a shorthand writer in open Court on September 10, 1975, in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the appeal. By the order of the learned Judge, the fact dismissing the appeal was recorded in the order sheet by the Reader of the Court on that very day, i.e. September 10, 1975. Before the transcript of the judgment could be signed by the learned Judge, he unfortunately expired. As per Rule 88 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the Registrar, after obtaining the orders from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, appended the following note at the end of the typed transcript of the judgment,--
"The judgment was dictated and delivered in open Court by the Hon'ble Justice J.P. Jain on September 10, 1975. His Lordship's signature could not be obtained on the judgment because of his sad demise on 17-9-1975."
(3.)On December 4, 1975, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Hiranand (who died during the pendency of the appeal) moved the present application with the prayer that since the transcript of the judgment pronounced by the late Hon'ble J.P. Jain J. on September 10, 1975 was not signed by the learned Judge, it is not a judgment in the eye of law and therefore the second appeal No. 187 of 1973 should be deemed to be still pending before this Court. This application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.)The facts which have given rise to this application may be shortly stated. Hiranand filed a second appeal in this Court under Section 100, Civil P. C. against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated February 27, 1973. This appeal was registered as S. B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 187 of 1973. It came up for hearing before the Hon'ble J.P. Jain, J. At the close of the hearing, the learned Judge dictated the judgment, to a shorthand writer in open Court on September 10, 1975, in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the appeal. By the order of the learned Judge, the fact dismissing the appeal was recorded in the order sheet by the Reader of the Court on that very day, i.e. September 10, 1975. Before the transcript of the judgment could be signed by the learned Judge, he unfortunately expired. As per Rule 88 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the Registrar, after obtaining the orders from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, appended the following note at the end of the typed transcript of the judgment,--
"The judgment was dictated and delivered in open Court by the Hon'ble Justice J.P. Jain on September 10, 1975. His Lordship's signature could not be obtained on the judgment because of his sad demise on 17-9-1975."
(3.)On December 4, 1975, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Hiranand (who died during the pendency of the appeal) moved the present application with the prayer that since the transcript of the judgment pronounced by the late Hon'ble J.P. Jain J. on September 10, 1975 was not signed by the learned Judge, it is not a judgment in the eye of law and therefore the second appeal No. 187 of 1973 should be deemed to be still pending before this Court. This application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.