LAXMAN Vs. RATNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Bidar, on 8-9-1969, by which he directed that the suit will be reheard and disposed of by him. This arises in the following circumstances: The Civil Judge of Bidar Sri Sanjeeva Gowda heard the arguments on 7-8-1969 and posted the case for judgment to 13-8-1969. In the meanwhile, he was suspended by the High Court as per High Court Order No. ROC.3807/68 dated 8-8-1968. Thereafter he was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 24-11-1963. The judgment in the case, as already noted, was to be pronounced on 13-8-1969. The learned Civil Judge who was posted in place of Sri Sanjeeva Gowda was of the view that the judgment prepared during the period when his predecessor was under order of suspension cannot be a valid judgment and he could not be compelled to pronounce that judgment. Accordingly, he passed the order directing re-hearing of the suit. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Shri L.Govindaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that under the provisions of Or.20, R.2 CPC., when a judgment is prepared by a predecessor in office the successor in office has no choice but to pronounce the judgment. It was therefore submitted that as the learned Civil Judge has failed to discharge his duty, which is an obligatory duty, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under S.115, CPC. by asking the learned Civil Judge to pronounce the judgment kept ready by his predecessor.

(3.) As against this contention, Sri S. R. Kagalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the judgment was prepared, as found from the order of the learned Civil Judge, during the time when he was under suspension, hence such a judgment could not be pronounced. Secondly, he contended that when the Civil Judge was under suspension, it was not competent for him to prepare the judgment also.