Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The Civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the procedural irregularity alleged to have been committed by the Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, while pronouncing the judgment in O.S.No.584 of 1996.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is as follows:

She filed the said suit before the Seventh Assistant City Civil Court against the respondent herein for specific performance to enforce a sale agreement dated 20.10.1988. According to her, she had paid the entire sale consideration as evidenced by certain documents. Even though the respondent had not denied the payment specifically in the written statement, the petitioner had proved the payment also by filing the income-tax returns. The lower Court did not accept the said payment and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of specific performance, but, however, directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner within three months from 24.3.1999. According to the petitioner, the lower Court, even without dictating the judgment to the Stenographer, transcribing and signing the same, simply endorsed in the plaint docket sheet to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to the said relief.
(1) Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee and another, and in particular paragraph 6; (2) Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another, ; (3) Chowaram Bachan v. Thanaram, and (4) Beni Madho Prasad Singh v. Adit and others, .

4. (a) Countering the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.K. Raghavalu for the respondent, submitted that four issues and an additional issue had been framed, 391/2 pages had been transcribed though the entire judgment had been dictated by the learned Judge and that the transcribed part of it covered the vital issues 1 to 3 and that the stenographer was half way through the fourth issue and the additional issue. A reasonable inference should be drawn that all the issues had been dictated to the Stenographer and on the date the judgment was pronounced, viz. 24.3.1999 the judgment must be deemed to have been completed.

7. The learned Senior Counsel is well-founded in his submission would be evident from the records made available pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the learned Judge. It is seen from the said records that the learned Judge had commenced the dictation of the judgment on 23.3.1999, completed the pleadings on that day, continued the dictation on 24.3.1999 and completely dictated the judgment upto issues 1 to 3 and according to the learned Judge, the findings on issues 1 to 3 will decide the finding on issue 4 and the fifth issue is only a conclusion, that would ultimately result in the context of the findings in support of the other issues as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to specific performance. The findings on issues 1 to 3 having been given on 24.3.1999, the learned Judge dictated under issue 5 that in view of his findings on issues 1 to 3 the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance and according to the learned Judge, the findings on issues 1 to 3 are sufficient and will decide the remaining issues 4 and 5 and the result of the suit. It is the further stand of the learned Judge that issues 3 and 4 were overlapping and he desired to group issues 3 and 4 and record his findings. There was pressure of work for disposals to reach the norms and he dictated the result under issue 6 and the operative portion of the judgment at about 5.30 p.m. The Stenographer had taken the portion of the judgment dictated by the learned Judge and then she wrote the result portion in longhand on the note paper and sent the papers to the learned Judge when he was on the dais. He pronounced the judgment and initialled it in open Court. Since it was 5.45 p.m. and the learned Judge was tired, he could not peruse the judgment on that day. Next day he reached Court early and perused the judgment and he then noticed that issues 4 and 5 had not been specifically covered. He therefore dictated those issues. Issue No.4 is whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part and whether the defendant was not ready. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendant had not produced the title deeds and extended the time. These allegations were already met under issues 2 and 3 and in respect of issue No. 4, the learned Judge had merely reiterated the findings already recorded under issues 2 and 3. Under issue 5 he had merely stated that in view of his findings on other issues, it followed that the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance. The finding in respect of issue 6 had already been dictated and transcribed in the notes paper, which alone is usually read out and initialled. At about 3 p.m. on the 25th the Counsel for the plaintiff represented in open Court that she wanted to peruse the judgment. The learned Judge permitted her without any hesitation to peruse the judgment as he had completely dictated the entire judgment and he "was under the impression that his Stenographer would have typed all the portions of the judgment. Even the Stenographer had mentioned that on 25.3.1999 morning the learned Judge had dictated issues 4 and 5 and she had taken the notes in shorthand note book. According to the learned Judge, due to the mistaken impression that all the issues had been dealt with, he had on 24.3.1999 dictated the operative portion of the judgment and noticing the omission he had on 25.3.1999 dictated the remaining issues 4 and 5. As according to the learned Judge, the findings already recorded under issues 1 to 3 warranted the dismissal of the suit and the operative portion of the judgment was consistent with the findings under issues 1 to 3 and the issues 4 and 5 did not require any separate discussion since they had been practically covered under issues I to 3 and under the bona fide impression that all the issues had been dealt with and dictated, he had pronounced the judgment on 24.3.1999.

(a) the points for consideration;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled;

and shall bear the date on which it is pronounced and shall be signed by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."

The learned Senior Counsel also referred to a number of decisions, which will be referred to in due course.

13. As. against the above contentions by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, as already noticed, submitted that the dictation of the judgment had been completed before the judgment was actually pronounced, the Stenographer had transcribed 391/2 pages and completed dealing with issues 1 to 3 and part of issue 4 and the additional issue and there should be a reasonable inference that all the issues had been dictated to the Stenographer before the judgment was pronounced on 24.3.1999. The learned Senior Counsel is not well-founded in his submission in view of what I have already recorded.