Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs M/S. Asia (Private) Limited, Bangalore on 18 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(5)KARLJ273
ORDER G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. We are impelled to pass this order to highlight and to put an end to an unwarranted practice susceptible to varied distortions, mischiefs and undesired results, at times baffling; this practice is being continued in the Registry of this Court unabated for a pretty long time. Our experience tells us that in the guise of such a practice as against the application filed for grant of a particular order passed by a Hon'ble Judge concerned, the Registry grants certified copies of the order drawn up by the concerned official in the Registry of this Court based on their own understanding and interpretation of the concerned judicial order. This aspect can very well be appreciated from all that what has transpired, glaringly and openly, in the present appeal before us.
2. The present first appeal has been filed by the defendant, who has suffered money decree for a sum of Rs. 2,31,472.12 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. On 13-11-1997, while admitting the appeal, we stayed the execution of the decree subject to deposit of 75% of the decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs to be paid within six weeks. Subsequently, the respondent filed an LA. bringing to our notice that due to some error caused by the Stenographer in typing 25% instead of 75%, the appellant has deposited 25% of the decretal amount and the same may be corrected. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded to the said request because admittedly there was an error. Accordingly, on 28-1-1998, we passed the following order:--
"G.C. Bharuka and Chidananda Ullal, JJ.
28-1-1998 The learned Counsel appearing for both sides agree that in the order dated 13-11-1997, because of inadvertence the stay which was granted subject to payment of 75% of the decretal amount was wrongly recorded as 25% of the decretal amount. The Counsel for the appellant states that 25% of the decretal amount has already been deposited. In that view of the matter, the appellant is directed to deposit the remaining 50% of the decretal amount within six weeks from today. In case of failure to do so, the interim order shall stand vacated".
3. Despite the above order, the appellant instead of depositing the remaining 50% of the decretal amount ventured to deposit only 25% thereof within the stipulated time. The respondent-decree holder, thereupon filed an application before the Executing Court seeking permission to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant for the decretal amount since according to it because of non-compliance of the terms of the stay granted by this Court the same stood vacated. The Executing Court satisfied with the plea allowed the said request by its order dated 2-4-1998. The appellant, coming to know of the said order passed on application filed by the decree holder, filed an application (I.A. VI) in the above Ex. Case No. 714 of 1997 for recalling the order dated 2-4-1998 by taking a plea that under the terms of the order passed by us they were required to deposit only 50% of the decretal amount. But, the Executing Court, by rightly appreciating the terms of the order passed by us, rejected the said prayer under its order dated 6-4-1998. The appellant questioned the said order by filing Civil Revision Petition No. 1227 of 1998 which was admitted on 15-2-1998 with grant of an interim order restraining the decree holder from encashing the bank guarantee. As is evident from the pleadings in the civil revision petition, the said order was obtained by taking a plea that stay was granted by us subject to deposit of only 50% of the decretal amount.
4. This lead to filing of I.A. 4 by the plaintiff/respondent in the present appeal for clarification of the order dated 28-1-1998 passed by us. During the course of hearing of the said I.A., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per the certified copy of the order dated 28-1-1998 furnished by the registry of this Court they were required to deposit only 50% of the decretal amount which they have already deposited. We were shocked and surprised to hear the said argument because the original order sheet signed by us did not subscribe to the said plea. Then, at our request, learned Counsel for the appellant produced the certified copy of an order purported to have been passed by us on 28-1-1998, which reads thus.-
"This Court doth order that pending disposal of the above RFA, the appellant be and is hereby directed to deposit 50% of the decretal amount within six weeks from today (i.e., from 28-1-1998) and that in case of failure to do so, the interim order already granted shall stand vacated".
5. Faced with said plea and the certified copy of the order dated 28-1-1998 granted by the Registry of this Court on 5-6-1998, we, inter alia, passed order to the following effect.-
"The Registrar (Judicial), is directed to immediately hold an enquiry as to how such copies are issued by the Registry and who are responsible for the same, because ultimately this may lead to initiation of contempt proceedings. It should also be clarified as to under whose authority the Assistant Registrars concerned are issuing the orders of this Court. The report should reach us by Monday.
In the meantime, since the order dated 28-1-1998 was passed in the presence of both the parties, the appellant is directed to deposit the remaining 25% of the decretal amount within 3 days from this date or else the stay will stand vacated and they will be liable to pay the entire decretal amount".
6. On 8-6-1998, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted his first report stating therein to the following effect.-
"The interim order in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 28-1-1998 was drafted by the Section Officer and was scrutinised by the Deputy Registrar Sri C. Veerabhadrappa. As per the procedure followed, the whole of the order of the Hon'ble Court is not reproduced in the format of the interim order, and only the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court will be mentioned therein. The explanation given by Sri C. Veerabhadrappa, Deputy Registrar, is placed below and the same may kindly be perused.
On verification of the matter, I am of the opinion that the procedure followed by the Deputy Registrar is in accordance with the practice. Though the word "remaining" contained in the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 28-1-1998 has not been mentioned in the format of the interim order, the words, used in the format of the interim order convey the directions of the Hon'ble Court to the appellant to deposit 50% of the decretal amount within six weeks. Perhaps the Deputy Registrar felt that as 25% of the decretal amount had already been deposited, the direction of the Hon'ble Court to the appellant was to deposit the remaining 50% of the decretal amount which had not been deposited then".
7. The above report of the Registrar (Judicial) justifying the grant of certified copies like the one at hand on the basis of some practice and further trying to support the action of the Deputy Registrar which is clearly based on mis-interpretation and mis-understanding of judicial order does not stand to our reasons. Such practice of granting certified copies are not only detrimental to judicial administration but are in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions concerning grant of certified copies. On the contrary, a bare reading of the relevant rules as contained in Chapter XVII read with those contained in Chapter XVI of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 (in short the 'Rules') amply shows that the Registrar (Judicial) has furnished his report under misguided instructions, may be for shielding the erring officials.
8. Accordingly, we directed him to place on record by tracing out the source of said practice prevailing in the Registry of this Court as to granting of certified copies as per understanding of the officials working in the Registry and whether the same can be substantiated by any acceptable basis like the rules or any judicial order or any binding precedent. Thereupon, he has submitted his further report dated 18-6-1998. In this report, he admits that the certified copy furnished to the appellant is not the copy of the order passed by us on 28-1-1998 but it is a copy of the communication intended to be sent to the Lower Court. He further admits that the appellant ought to have been furnished with exact copy of the order passed by us, which has not been done in the present case. Regarding the practice being continued in this Court, on discreet enquiry, discloses that.-
"About the format used for preparing the order for communication to the Trial Court/Lower Court, it is ascertained that the practice of preparing such communication has been in existence since long. There does not appear to be any rule requiring the registry to use any particular format for sending communication of orders on interlocutory applications. It appears that with the intention of communicating only the direction given in interim orders, format used was to exclude other matters confining the orders as far as possible only to the direction".
9. Having set out the factual background, it may be advisable to refer the relevant rules contained in the Karnataka High Court Rules pertaining to grant of certified copies. Chapter XVII of the Rules provides "Copies", whereunder Rules 1, 2 and 6 are relevant for the present purposes which read thus.-
CHAPTER XVII Copies
1.(1) Parties to a proceeding in the High Court shall be entitled as of right to apply for and receive certified copies of all pleadings, judgments, decrees or orders and all documents and depositions of witnesses made or exhibited in the said proceeding.
(2) Persons who are not parties to the proceedings may be granted such copies only if the Registrar on being satisfied about the sufficiency and bona fides of the grounds or reasons on which the applicant requires copies, directs that such copies be furnished.
(3) Certified copies may be prepared either.-
(i) by copying on copying sheet; or any other paper, as provided in Rules 2-A to 2-E of this Chapter; or
(ii) by photocopying, including photostat, xerox or repragrah or any other process by which the original is mechanically or electronically copied representing faithfully the original.
2. Applications for certified copies shall be made in prescribed form giving the nature and number of the proceeding, the date and full description of the judgement or order or the document, as the case may be, and shall be signed by the party or his Advocate.
xxx xxx xxx
6. Every certified copy issued by the High Court shall be certified by the Examiners to be a true and accurate copy of the original and shall be sealed with the seal of the High Court.
10. From the above provisions, it is crystal clear and goes by ordinary prudence that when a certified copy of an order is sought to he obtained, then a true and exact copy thereof has to be furnished and not the copy of any abridged, diluted or recast order. Under statutory rules referred to above, it has been mandatorily provided that the certified copy has to be necessarily the true and accurate copy of the original. Adopting of any other course definitely amounts to interference with due judicial process and therefore nobody can be heard to take a plea justifying his action of granting copies of orders under the guise of the same having been passed by the Judge concerned.
11. The Registrar (Judicial) has also brought to our notice that under Rules 9 and 13 of the Chapter XVI, which read thus.-
CHAPTER XVI Judgments, Decrees and Orders xxx xxx xxx
9. A decree or formal order shall be prepared or caused to be prepared by the Registrar in accordance with the judgment as early as may be practicable after the date on which the judgment is deemed to have become final.
xxx xxx xxx
13. In the case of Interlocutory Applications, formal orders for communication to the subordinate Courts or for furnishing copies to the parties shall be drawn up expeditiously. The rules of this Chapter regarding the formal parts of judgments and decree shall apply as far as may be to the orders in the nature of judgments and formal orders in the nature of decrees pronounced or made on Interlocutory Applications.
12. There cannot be any quarrel regarding intendment and purpose of framing the above rules but again it has to be remembered that by taking shelter under the said rule the formal or interim orders cannot be drawn by the officers in the Registry by employing their own understanding of the judicial orders thereby diluting or altering the same. Even the formal order must be in the exact words of the judge which has to be culled out from the judgment.
13. In this connection, we may usefully refer to Rule 6-A(1) of Order XX of Civil Procedure Code and the proviso to sub-rule (2) thereof. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6-A provides that.-
ORDER XX Judgment and Decree xxx xxx xxx 6-A. Last paragraph of judgment to indicate in precise terms the reliefs granted.--(1) The last paragraph of the judgment shall state in precise terms the relief which has been granted by such judgment.
(2) xxx xxx xxx:
Provided that, where an application is made for obtaining a copy of only the last paragraph of the judgment, such copy shall indicate the name and address of all parties to the suit.
14. The purpose of our referring to the above proviso is that where in the judgment and order the last paragraph clearly spells out the terms of relief either final or interim, a formal order for the purpose of communication can be drawn up by the Registry by bodily adopting the same. But, if there is no such separate paragraph or paragraphs precisely setting out the reliefs, then the entire original order has to be made as part of the formal order.
15. Having reached the above said conclusion, it may be necessary for us to take into account the practice continued in the judicial side of this Court. In many a cases, some of the Hon'ble Judges are passing interim orders by just saying 'I/o', 'Interim prayer', 'Stay of Annexure', etc. If, certified copies are applied for such orders, then, in our opinion the Registry while granting certified copies, has to give copy of the exact words of the Hon'ble Judges and beneath the order, it should set out the interim relief claimed by the petitioner and/or the description of the impugned Annexures as the case may be.
16. Let this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his appropriate consideration.