PEELA POTHL NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been preferred aggrieved by the Orders dated 17-2-1998 passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.P. Nos.1221 to 1223 of 1997.

(2.) The said Original Petitions arose out of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 and the action attaching the properties. The Registry has taken objection with regard to the maintainability of these appeals, as the appeals are not accompanied by the certified copies of the decrees and that filing of certified copies of the decrees cannot be dispensed with.

(3.) While it is true that filing of a certified copy of a decree cannot be dispensed with on the analogy in Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with Rule 6-A of Order XX of C.P.C. Both are not mutually exclusive and if that be so, both the provisions have to be harmoniously construed. While filing of a certified copy of a judgment can be dispensed with, filing of a certified copy of a decree cannot be dispensed with. That is insofar as the analogy taking Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is concerned. But, a reading of Order XX Rule 6-A of C.P.C., makes abundantly clear that while amending the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1976 the Parliament has taken cognizance of the delays in drafting the decrees and the consequent hardship faced by the litigants, who have suffered the decree and as such, by operation of law, the last paragraph of the Judgment/Order is to be read as a decree, if the decree is not drafted within 15 days of passing of the Judgment/Order. In the instant cases, there is a clear endorsement from the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in the copy applications filed in the above O.Ps. whose orders are subject matter of these appeals, that there are no decrees drafted pursuant to the impugned orders passed.