Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pratap Karan And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By ... on 9 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(4)ALT334, AIR 2007 (NOC) 2513 (A. P.)
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri Vedula Venkatramana and the learned Advocate General.
This application is filed to dispense with the certified copy and also the typed copy of the decree made in O.S. No. 155 of 2005. dated 30-4-2005, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.
2. It is not in serious controversy that the learned Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District had delivered an elaborate judgment on 30-4-2005 in O.S. No. 155 of 2005. The said application is filed under Order 20 Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience).
3. Order 20 Rule 6-A of the Code deals with preparation of decree and the provision reads as hereunder:
Preparation of decree:- (1) Every endeavour shall be made to ensure that the decree is drawn up as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within fifteen days from the date on which the judgment is pronounced.
(2) An appeal may be preferred against the decree without filing a copy of the decree and in such a case the copy made available to the party by the court shall for the purposes of Rule 1 of Order XLI be treated as the decree. But as soon as the decree is drawn, the judgment shall cease to have the effect of a decree for the purposes of execution or for any other purpose.
4. Order XLI of the Code deals with Appeals from original decrees and Rule 1 of the said Order dealing with Form of appeal - What to accompany memorandum reads as hereunder:
Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the [judgment]:
Provided that where two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgment has been delivered therefor and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by that judgment, whether by the same appellant or by different appellants, the Appellate Court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment.
5. It is pertinent to note that in Rule 1 of Order XLII of the Code 'judgment' had been substituted by Amending Act 46 of 1999. It may be appropriate to have a glance at Clause 28 of the notes of the Amending Bill 1999 which had stated thus:
Order XX makes it compulsory for a party filing appeal to annex the certified copy of the decree to the Memorandum of Appeal. Justice Malimath Committee has pointed out that it takes a long time for obtaining certified copy of the decree and thus filing of appeal takes a long time. It is proposed to dispense with annexing certified copy of the decree along with Memorandum of Appeal and it is also proposed that the whole judgment shall be made available to the parties immediately after the judgment pronounced.
6. Likewise Section 96 of the Code reads as hereunder:
Appeal from original decrees:- (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed (ten thousand rupees).
7. It is pertinent to note that Order 20 Rule 6-A of the Code had been introduced by Amending Act with a view to ensure that the delay in preparation of the decree may not hamper the filing of an appeal. It is needless to say that though Sub-rule (1) of Order 20 Rule 6-A of the Code specifies that every endeavour shall be made to ensure that the decree is drawn up as expeditiously as possible and in any case within fifteen days from the date on which the judgment is pronounced, there may be cases where there may be urgency, that is the reason why Sub-rule (2) of Order 20 Rule 6-A of the Code specifies that an appeal may be preferred against the decree without filing a copy of the decree and in such a case the copy made available to the party by the Court shall for the purposes of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code be treated as the decree, and further specifies that so long as the decree is not drawn up, the last paragraph of the judgment shall be deemed to be the decree for the purpose of execution and the party interested shall be entitled to apply for a copy of that paragraph only without being required to apply for a copy of the whole of the judgment; but as soon as a decree is drawn up, the last paragraph of the judgment shall cease to have the effect of a decree for the purpose of execution or for any other purpose.
8. On a careful reading of the language of Order XLI Rule 1; along with Section 96 of the Code; and also Sub-rule (2) of Order 20 Rule 6-A of the Code, the Court is empowered to order dispensing with the filing of the decree copy while presenting an appeal. Moreover it is an enabling provision and it is within the discretion of the Court either to dispense with the filing of the decree copy or to direct the party to present the appeal along with the decree copy depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.
9. The scope and ambit of this provision had been dealt with in the undernoted decisions Chandrasekhar Raula v. Gangadhar Raula AIR 1997 Orissa 28 (D.B.), Bholanath v. Madan Mohan , Chiranjilal v. Hari Das Sood 2001 AIHC 1038, Krishnadas v. Santimoyee , Binni v. State of H.P. 2002 AIHC 312 (HP), Surya Kumar Das v. Ajit Kumar Das , Karnataka SRTC v. ASIA (P) Ltd. 1998 (5) Kant.L.J. 273 (D.B.).
10. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is stated by the unsuccessful plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners that they had the advantage of an interim order during the pendency of the suit and in view of the dismissal of the suit the respondents are making an attempt to disturb their possession and hence there is urgency.
11. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the discretion conferred on this Court under Order 20 Rule 6-A (2) of the Code to be exercised and accordingly the filing of the certified copy of the decree for the present is hereby dispensed with.