PUNJAB PROVINCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

This be considered as admitted case. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No.10970 of 2000 and Civil Revision No.847 of 2000 as a common question of law and fact is involved.

2. Very short point is involved in this case. Two independent appeals were filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.1041 of 1988 for declaration and specific performance of contract decided on 31‑7‑1995 by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Vehari and against the order in Application No.5 of 1988 in ejectment petition decided on 31‑7‑1995 by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class/Rent Controller, Vehari. The learned Appellate Court heard both the appeals wrote the judgment in Civil Appeal No.131/13 of 1995 filed by the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. against Muhammad Ramzan on 24‑1‑1996 and short order in Urdu:‑‑

Another order was written in English i.e. Annexure L. But one line order in Urdu was signed and the judgment could not be signed due to the sudden death of the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari. This short order in English on the rent appeal also could not be signed by the deceased learned Additional. District Judge, Vehari. The successor Court vide order, dated 17‑7‑2000 decided to rehear the arguments and then pronounce the judgment in accordance with law and fixed the date on 21‑8‑2000 for hearing of the main appeal. The instant order is impugned in this writ petition.

3 The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that there is no rule or law to vitiate the judgment and order merely on the basis of not signing the detailed order especially in the circumstances of sudden death, the judgment and order was not signed by the late anywhere that if the judgment and order is not The short order on interim sheet written and signed by the late learned Additional District Judge, Vehari expressed that the judgment and order has been announced and the appeals of petitioner were accepted. The deficiency of signature can be cured easily by the successor learned Additional District Judge, Vehari. The short order having the signature of the learned late Presiding Officer and the detailed order dictated by him to his stenographer was a clear‑cut proof of acceptance of petitioner's appeals, reliance is placed on "The State v. Asif Adil and others" (1997 SCMR 209) where it was held:‑‑

O.XLI‑‑‑ Rules 31, 99 and 108---Judgment in appeal ‑‑-- Mode of‑‑-- Omission of one of the Judges of a Division Bench of a High Court to sign a judgment in a civil appeal as required by Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C., though authored by him, for an explainable reason‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Such omission shall not vitiate the judgment in view of sections 99 and 108, C.P.C., so long as such irregularity does not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court provided the Judge concerned remained in service.

Further relied on "Abdur Rahim v. Taj Muhammad" (PLD 1970 Lahore 294) in a settlement matter it was held:‑‑

A Settlement Commissioner hearing a revision under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, accepted the same and announced his decision by a short Urdu order 'as per English order the revision petition is accepted', This short Urdu order was signed by him but he died before signing the English order. It was contended that, in the circumstance, the unsigned English order was not a proper judgment in the case and was of no legal effect. The High Court negated this contention and held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure with regard to writing of judgments and pronouncement thereof by the trial Court are contained in Order XX, rules 1, 2 and 3 and by the Appellate Court in Order XLI, rule 31. Since there is no regular procedure prescribed for writing, pronouncement and delivery of judgments in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), the principles embodied in the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure can be borrowed with advantage.

He further relied on "P.I.A. Corporation v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and 2 others" (PLD 1994 Karachi 32) where it was held that:‑‑

Order/decision of Tribunal/Review Board announced orally but not reduced into writing or signed ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Decision/order of Tribunal/Review Board even though announced verbally was free from ambiguity and otherwise ascertainable‑‑‑Such decision/order must be given effect to as if it was a decision/order in writing duly signed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that according to Chapter Il of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I the judgment should be written, dated and signed by the Court. He relied on "Muhammad Amin v. Muhammad Ramzan" (PLD 1988 Lahore 331), where it was held:‑‑

"The trial Court had dictated the judgment and had also announced same but had not signed it; Presiding Officer having been transferred and handed over charge, such Presiding Officer, held, was in no position to sign the judgment‑‑‑Without signatures, the judgment was not a proper judgment."

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31‑7‑1995 decided the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and vide another order also decided the ejectment petition. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and order in the ejectment petition were challenged through independent appeals. The learned Appellate Court decided the appeal, wrote the final judgment but could not sign it due to the sudden death. Even the short order in English was not signed. Only a single line Urdu order with initials is existing on the file. Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. is reproduced:‑‑

"Contents date and signature of judgment.‑‑‑The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state‑‑

(a) the points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reasons for the decisions; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."

6. Chapter II, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I is also reproduced:‑‑

Directions re: judgments .‑‑‑In the preparation and delivery of judgment the attention of the Civil Courts is drawn to the following directions:‑‑

(1) The judgment should be written either in language of the Court or in English;

(2) when a judgment is not written by the Presiding Officer with his hand, every page of such judgment shall be signed by him;

(3) it should be pronounced in open Court after it has been, written an signed;

(4) it should be dated and signed in open Court at the time of being pronounced and when once signed shall not afterwards be added or added to, save as provided by section 152 or on review;

(5) if it is the judgment of any Court other than the Court of Small Causes, it should contain a concise statement of the case; the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision;

(6) if it is the judgment of a Court of Small Causes, it should contain the points for determination and the decision thereupon; and

(7) it should contain the direction of the Court as to costs."

While keeping in view the provisions of Order XLI, Rule, 31, C. P. C. it is very clear that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court shall be to writing and shall state the point of determination, the decision thereon, the reason for decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled and shall at the time that it / is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein. There is no escape to the provisions contained in Order XLI, j Rule 31, C.P.C.. as the decree follows the judgment and a decree will not follow a single line short order therefore no interference is made in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge deciding for rehearing of appeals. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

M.B.A.7P‑43/L Petition dismissed.