1975 (8) TMI 146 - HC - Indian Laws

Court allows treating appeal as revision petition, emphasizing judgment can be altered until signed.

The court allowed the application to treat the appeal as a revision petition, emphasizing that a judgment can be withdrawn, altered, or modified until it ... - Issues:1. Whether a judgment delivered orally in open court can be withdrawn, altered, or modified before it is signed and sealed.Analysis:The judgment in question raised the issue of the finality of a judgment delivered orally in open court before being signed and sealed. The appellant requested that the appeal be treated as a revision petition after the judgment was orally dictated but before it was signed and sealed. The respondents objected, arguing that once a judgment is dictated in open court, it becomes final and cannot be reconsidered. The court examined relevant statutory provisions, including Order 20 Rule 1 and Order 20 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require judgments to be signed and dated in open court. The court also considered case law, such as Firm Gokal Chandjagan Nath v. Firm Nand Ram Dass Atma Ram and Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. Registrar Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, which emphasized that the date of operation of a judgment is not postponed to the date of signing.Furthermore, the court discussed the effect of the death of a judge before the delivery of a judgment in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that a judgment is not valid if both judges are not alive at the time of delivery. The court also referred to the decision in Beni Madho Prasad Singh v. Adit and Ors., where it was held that a judgment delivered in open court is not final until signed and dated. The court highlighted the differing views in various cases, such as Faulad and Anr. v. State and Sangam Lal v. Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, regarding the permissibility of altering a judgment before it is signed and sealed.Moreover, the court discussed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Ishwarbhai Desaibhai Patel v. Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta and Ors., which held that a judgment delivered in open court becomes final and cannot be revised. However, the court ultimately relied on English case law, such as Millensted v. Crosvenor House (Park Lane), Ltd. and Moon Motors Ltd. v. Kinan Wou, to conclude that a judgment can be withdrawn, altered, or modified until it is signed and dated. The court emphasized that signing and dating a judgment is an act that perfects it, making it final and complete. Based on these principles, the court allowed the application to treat the appeal as a revision petition and listed the case for further hearing.