K.V. RAMI REDDI versus PREMA

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 20-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 83 
K.V. RAMI REDDI 
v. 
PR EMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2001) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XX r. 1 and 3 and 
A 
B 
s. 2(9) -
Validity of judgment delivered -
Trial judge not 
completing judgment before he delivered· his decision and c 
decreeing the suit' claim - Set aside by High· Court holding it 
to be no judgment in eye of law - Held: Warrants no 
interference - Declaration by a Judge of his intention of what 
his judgment' is going to be or whaffinal result is going to 
embody, is not a judgment until he had crystallized his 0 
intentions into a formal shape and pronounced it in open court 
as the final expression of his mind - Judgment/Order 
Words and phrases - 'Judgment' - Meaning of - In the 
context of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
The respondent filed suit for specific performance. E 
According to the respondent, on 24.3.1999, the Civil Judge 
without dictating the judgment to the Stenographer, 
transcribing and signing the same, simply made an 
endorsement in the plaint docket sheet to the effect that 
the respondent was not entitled to the relief claimed and 
F 
the operative portion was dictated on 25.03.1999 during 
lunch time. Respondent filed Revision petition 
highlighting the irregularities committed by the Civil Judge 
while pronouncing the judgment. The appellant 
contended that the entire judgment had been dictated by G 
the Judge and the transcribed part covered the vital 
issues 1 to 3 and the Stenographer was half way through 
the fourth issue and the additional issue; and that a 
reasonable inference could be drawn that all the issues 
83 
H 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A had been dictated to the stenographer and the date on 
which the judgment was pronounced-Le. 24.03.1999, the 
judgment must be deemed to have been completed. The 
Single Judge of High Court held that since the Civil Judge 
had not completed the judgment before he delivered his 
B decision, it was no judgment in the eye of law. The 
judgment dated 24.03.1999 was set aside and the matter 
was remitted to the Civil Judge to hear the argumen+s 
afresh and render a decision. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the question whether the 
judgment has been validly delivered, if it is a mere 
procedural irregularity and the judge concerned had not 
signed the judgment, then the judgment thus rendered 
D cannot be in-validated. Order XX Rule 1 CPC postulates 
that after the case has been heard, the court hearing the 
same shall pronounce the judgment in open court by 
dictation to the shorthand writer, wherever it is 
permissible. It bears the date on which it is pronounced. 
The date of the judgment is never altered by the date on 
E which the signature has been put subsequently. The mere 
fact that a major portion has been dictated by the learned 
Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by itself, 
lead to the conclusion that the judgment had been 
delivered. [Para 9J [87-G; 88-A, BJ 
F 
1.2 The declaration by a Judge of his intention of 
what his 'judgment' is going to be, or a declaration of his 
intention of what final result it is going to embody, is not a 
judgment until he had crystallized his intentions into a 
G-- formal shape and pronounced it in open court as the final 
expression of his mind. [Para 11J [89-C, DJ 
1.3 Section 2(9) of CPC defines a 'judgment' to mean 
the statement given by the judge of the grounds for a 
decree or order. CPC does not envisage the writing of a 
H judgment after deciding the case by an oral judgment and 
K.V. RAMI REDDI v. PREMA 
85 
,J 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
it must not be resorted to and it would be against public A 
policy to ascertain by evidence alone what the 'judgment' 
of the Court was, where the final result was announced 
-
orally but the 'judgment', as defined in CPC embodying a 
concise statement of the case, points for determination, 
.. 
the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, B 
was finalized later on. [Paras 12 and 13] [89-D, E, F] 
t 
1.4 Undisputedly, the trial judge had not completed 
the judgment before he delivered his decision. That being 
l 
so, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any 
' 
infirmity to warrant interference. It is directed that the c 
trial court would be hear the arguments afresh. [Para 15] 
[90-C, D] 
Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh vs. Harendra Kumar Banerjee 
.. 
and Anr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.