REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE REGION, KARACHI
This matter concerns a civil suit filed by a respondent seeking a declaration regarding the correction of his date of birth in his service gradation list. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent obtained an interim status quo order, despite the department's position that he had reached the age of superannuation based on his recorded birth date. The department's appeals against this interim relief were dismissed by the District Judge and subsequently by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed a procedural irregularity: the High Court revision petition was heard and judgment reserved by a judge who was subsequently removed from office following the Supreme Court's decision in the 'Al-Jehad Trust' case. The judgment was later signed and announced by a different judge after the original judge had ceased to hold office. The Supreme Court held that a judgment signed and announced by a judge who is no longer in office is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the revision petition for fresh disposal within two weeks.
- Can a judgment be validly signed and announced by a judge who has ceased to hold office after the hearing concluded?
- What is the legal effect of a judgment announced by a judge who did not hear the case?
- Does the removal of a judge from office invalidate a judgment reserved by them but not yet announced?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---Respondent before us has filed a suit for declaration in the Court of 2nd Senior Civil Judge, South Karachi, which is pending. His grievance in the suit is that his birth date has been wrongly entered into the gradation list of 1991 in which, according to him, the year of his birth should have been shown as 1938 instead of 1936. During the pendency of the suit he filed application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For interim relief and he has been granted status quo ante. Meanwhile he has retired from service as he reached the age of sixty on 8-1-1996 on the consideration that his birth date is 9-1-1936 which is disputed by him. The appellant/department feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the learned District Judge, which is dismissed and then revision was filed in the High Court, which has also been dismissed.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the hearing of the revision took place in the High Court and the judgment was reserved on 12-6-1996 as the revision was heard by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khanzada, J. And was announced on 7-7-1996 by Mr. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah. It is further submitted that in the meantime judgment in the Judge's Case (Al-Jehad Trust v.
Federation of Pakistan) was announced by the Supreme Court on 20th March, 1996 and later meeting took place of the Committee of the Chief Justices in which decision was taken to lay off some Judges of the High Courts whose appointments were not to be regularised. Compliance was made and in consequence some Judges of Sindh High Court were laid off from 16-6-1996 including Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Khanzada. After having been laid off, the judgment was written and signed on 7-7-1996 on which date it was announced by another Judge and on the day Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Khanzada was not Judge of the High Court. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment or the High Court in the revision and direct that the revision should be deemed to be pending, which is to be disposed of within two weeks from today.
' The appeal is allowed in the terms stated above. Any observation in the leave granting order will not come in the way of the respondent.