Holding

A judgment is valid when pronounced in open court, even if it is not fully transcribed or signed at that moment; procedural irregularities do not invalidate it.

Summary

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which was decided by a Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge on 24 March 1999. The judge recorded only an endorsement in the docket and did not fully dictate the judgment before signing, with the operative portion being dictated the next day. The respondent raised a revision petition alleging that no valid judgment existed because the judge had not completed the judgment before delivery. The Madras High Court set aside the judgment as a nullity and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a judgment is deemed delivered when pronounced in open court, and procedural irregularities such as incomplete dictation or delayed signing do not invalidate it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial court was directed to hear the arguments afresh and deliver a proper judgment.

Issues considered

Whether a judgment not fully dictated or signed before being delivered constitutes a valid judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether procedural irregularities in the pronouncement of a judgment render it a nullity.
Interpretation of Order XX Rule 1, Rule 3, Rule 5 and Section 2(9) of the CPC with respect to judgment delivery.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 20 Rule 4(2), s. Order XX Rule 1, s. Order XX Rule 3, s. Order XX Rule 5, s. Section 152, s. Section 2(9)

Subjects

judgment deliverycivil procedureorder XXprocedural irregularityspecific performancejudgment validityCPC

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 83

K.V. RAMI REDDI A
v.
PR EMA
(Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2001)
FEBRUARY 20, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XX r. 1 and 3 and
s. 2(9) - Validity of judgment delivered - Trial judge not
completing judgment before he delivered· his decision and c
decreeing the suit' claim - Set aside by High· Court holding it
to be no judgment in eye of law - Held: Warrants no
interference - Declaration by a Judge of his intention of what
his judgment' is going to be or whaffinal result is going to
embody, is not a judgment until he had crystallized his
0
intentions into a formal shape and pronounced it in open court
as the final expression of his mind - Judgment/Order
Words and phrases - 'Judgment' - Meaning of - In the
context of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The respondent filed suit for specific performance. E
According to the respondent, on 24.3.1999, the Civil Judge
without dictating the judgment to the Stenographer,
transcribing and signing the same, simply made an
endorsement in the plaint docket sheet to the effect that
the respondent was not entitled to the relief claimed and F
the operative portion was dictated on 25.03.1999 during
lunch time. Respondent filed Revision petition
highlighting the irregularities committed by the Civil Judge
while pronouncing the judgment. The appellant
contended that the entire judgment had been dictated by G
the Judge and the transcribed part covered the vital
issues 1 to 3 and the Stenographer was half way through
the fourth issue and the additional issue; and that a
reasonable inference could be drawn that all the issues
83 H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A had been dictated to the stenographer and the date on
which the judgment was pronounced-Le. 24.03.1999, the
judgment must be deemed to have been completed. The
Single Judge of High Court held that since the Civil Judge
had not completed the judgment before he delivered his
B decision, it was no judgment in the eye of law. The
judgment dated 24.03.1999 was set aside and the matter
was remitted to the Civil Judge to hear the argumen+s
afresh and render a decision. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the question whether the
judgment has been validly delivered, if it is a mere
procedural irregularity and the judge concerned had not
signed the judgment, then the judgment thus rendered
D cannot be in-validated. Order XX Rule 1 CPC postulates
that after the case has been heard, the court hearing the
same shall pronounce the judgment in open court by
dictation to the shorthand writer, wherever it is
permissible. It bears the date on which it is pronounced.
The date of the judgment is never altered by the date on
E which the signature has been put subsequently. The mere
fact that a major portion has been dictated by the learned
Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by itself,
lead to the conclusion that the judgment had been
delivered. [Para 9J [87-G; 88-A, BJ
F
1.2 The declaration by a Judge of his intention of
what his 'judgment' is going to be, or a declaration of his
intention of what final result it is going to embody, is not a
judgment until he had crystallized his intentions into a
G-- formal shape and pronounced it in open court as the final
expression of his mind. [Para 11J [89-C, DJ
1.3 Section 2(9) of CPC defines a 'judgment' to mean
the statement given by the judge of the grounds for a
decree or order. CPC does not envisage the writing of a
H judgment after deciding the case by an oral judgment and
K.V. RAMI REDDI v. PREMA 85
,J [PASAYAT, J.]

it must not be resorted to and it would be against public A
policy to ascertain by evidence alone what the 'judgment'
of the Court was, where the final result was announced
- orally but the 'judgment', as defined in CPC embodying a
concise statement of the case, points for determination,
.. the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, B
was finalized later on. [Paras 12 and 13] [89-D, E, F]
t
1.4 Undisputedly, the trial judge had not completed
the judgment before he delivered his decision. That being
l so, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any
' infirmity to warrant interference. It is directed that the c
trial court would be hear the arguments afresh. [Para 15]
[90-C, D]
Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh vs. Harendra Kumar Banerjee
.. and Anr. AIR 1969 SC 1167; Ba/raj Taneja and Anr. vs. Sunil
Madan and Anr. 1999 (8) SCC 396 - referred to.
D

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2551
of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29/2/2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. No. 1909/1999. E
V. Balachandran for the Appellant.
/ V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondent.

"!"' The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the Civil G
Revision petition filed highlighting the irregularities committed
by the learned Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai while
,L
pronouncing the judgment in O.S. No. 584 of 1996. The
controversy in the suit need not be detailed, as the points in
issue in the present appeal lie within a very narrow compass.
H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.
...
A 3. The Suit was filed by the present respondent for specific
performance to enforce a sale agreement dated 20.10.1988.
The suit is stated to have been decided on 24.03.1999.
According to the present respondent, who was the petitioner in
the Civil Revision petition, even without dictating the judgment
B to the Stenographer, transcribing and signing the same, simply
an endorsement in the plaint docket sheet was made to the
effect that the plaintiff in the suit was not entitled to the relief of
specific performance to enforce a sale agreement but was
entitled to refund of Rs.2,00,000/-. Stand in the revision petition
c was that: there was no judgment in the eye of law. It was pointed
out that only the operative portion was dictated on 25.03.1999 1
during lunch time and, therefore, the decision rendered on
24.03.1999 was non est in the eye of law and a nullity. Learned
counsel appearing for the respondent in the Civil Revision
D
petition i.e. the present appellant took the stand that four issues
and an additional issue had been framed. The entire judgment
..
had been dictated by learned Single Judge and the transcribed
part covered the vital issues 1 to 3 and the Stenographer was
half way through the fourth issue and the additional issue.
Therefore, it was submitted that a reasonable inference should
E be drawn that all the issues had been dictated to the
stenographer and on the date the judgment was pronounced,
i.e. 24.03.1999, the judgment must be deemed to have been
completed. Learned Single Judge did not find substance in the '\
stand taken by the present appellant. It was held that since the
F learned Trial Judge had not completed the judgment before he
delivered his decision, it has to be held that there was no
judgment in the eye of law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition
was allowed and judgment dated 24.03.1999 was set aside
and the matter was remitted to the present Seventh Assistant
G City Civil Judge, Chennai who was to hear the arguments afresh
and render a decision.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
course adopted by learned City Civil Judge is permissible in
law in the background of Order XX, Rule-5 of the Code of Civil
H
K.V. RAMI REDDI v. PREMA 87
~.
,,. [PASAYAT, J.]

Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC'). A
· 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
I
submitted th?1t the Trial Judge has not decided the matter in the
background of Order XX, Rule 5, CPC. On the contrary, the
provisions of Order XX, Rules-1 and 3 apply to the facts of the
• case . B
~
6. Order XX, Rule-1 (1) of the CPC (Madras Amendment)
reads as follows:
"(1) The Court, after •he case has been heard, shall
pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on c
some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders.
(2) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation to a
shorthand-writer in open court, where the presiding Judge
D
"' has been specially empowered in that behalf by the High
Court."
Similarly, Order XX, Rule 3 reads as follows:
"The judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in
open Court at the time of pronouncing it and when once E
signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to save
as provided by Section 152 or on review."
• 7. Order XX, Rule 5 on Which great emphasis was laid by
" learned counsel forthe appellant says that in Suits in which issues F
have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision
with the reason therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the
finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the
decision of the Suit.
8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the G
respondent, this was not the view expressed by the learned Trial
~
Judge.
9. The ultimate question is whether in the instant case the
judgment has been validly delivered? If it is a mere procedural
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.
-...;,
A irregularity and the Judge concerned had not signed the
judgment, then the judgment thus rendered cannot be in-
validated. Order XX Ruie 1 CPC postulates that after the case
has been heard, the court hearing the same shall pronounce
the judgment in open court by dictation to the shorthand writer,
B wherever it is permissible. It bears the date on which it is
pronounced. The date of the judgment is never altered by the
date on which the signature has been put subsequently. The .....
mere fact that a major portion has been dictated by the learned
Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by itself, lead to
c the conclusion that the judgment had been delivered.
10. In Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh Vs. Harendra Kumar
Banerjee and Anr. (AIR 1969 SC 1167), it was inter-alia held
as follows (at Para 6):
"Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve,
D
according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial ,.
determination between the contesting parties of the matter
in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the
dispute to present their respective cases on question of
law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of
E evidence tendered by the parties and adjudication by a
reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the
facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts
found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial
trial, the judge not only must reach a conclusion which he 'i.
F regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the
practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate
mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A
judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial
questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached,
G only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that
suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding
the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no
judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a x
decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than
H one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the
K.V. RAMI REDDI v. PREMA 89
;} [PASAYAT, J.]

result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the A
matter in contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication
of the matter according to law and the procedure
established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily
entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has
• decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is B
~
subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have
adequate material on which it may determine whether the
facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly
applied and the resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate
that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in c
support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal
merely recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had
sufficiently proved the case in the plant."
11. The declaration by a Judge of his intention of what his
'judgment' is going to be, or a declaration of his intention of D
what final result it is going to embody, is not a judgment until he
had crystallized his intentions into a formal shape and
pronounced it in open court as the final expression of his mind.
12. The CPC does not envisage thewriting of a judgment
after deciding the case by an oral judgment and it must not be E
resorted to and it would be against public policy to ascertain by
evidence alone what the 'judgment' of the Court was, where the
.•
.; .
final result was announced orally but the 'judgment', as defined
in the CPC embodying a concise statement of the case, the
points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons F
for such decision, was finalized later on.
13. Section 2(9) of the CPC defines a "judgment" to mean
the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or
order.
G
14. In Ba/raj Taneja and Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan and Anr.
(1999 (8) sec 396), it was inter-alia held as follows:
'"' "There is yet another infirmity in the case which relates to
the "judgment" passed by the single Judge and upheld by
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
.,.
•
A the Division Bench.
"Judgment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil
Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the
grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should
contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4(2) which says that
8 a judgment "shall contain a concise statement of the case, •
the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the "'"
reasons for such decision". It should be a self-contained
document from which it should appear as to what were the
facts of the case and what was the controversy which was
c tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The
process of reasoning by which the Court came to the
ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be
reflected clearly in the judgment."
15. Undisputedly, the Trial Judge had not completed the
D ~
judgment before he delivered his decision. That being so, the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
interference. What the High Court has directed is to hear only
the arguments afresh. While dismissing the appeal, we direct
that the arguments shall be heard afresh and the Trial Court
E shall deliver its judgment as early as practicable, preferably
within three months from today. To avoid unnecessary delay, let
the parties appear before the Trial Court on 05.03.2008 so that
the date for arguments can be fixed.
~

F N.J. Appeal dismissed.