MATIUR RAHMAN Vs. RAMJAN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition is to be allowed. It is really an unfortunate state of thing that for the fault of the Presiding Officer a party is to suffer. There was an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a Medical Certificate was produced and that was exhibited and the signature of the Doctor was also exhibited. Thereafter the exhibit was not signed by the then Presiding Officer (Shri L.C. Nath, then Munsiff No.1, Golaghat). But he took that document into consideration and allowed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.1/96 before the learned Assistant District Judge at Golaghat and the learned Assistant District Judge at Golaghat and the learned Assistant District Judge by the impugned Judgment dated 27-9-1996 has held that the Judgment of the learned Munsiff is nullity in the eye of law and as such he quashed that Judgment and sent back the matter to the learned Munsiff with a further direction that this Presiding Officer, Shri L.C. Nath may be asked to appear before the learned Munsiff at Golaghat and to sign the document and that too at his own cost. No doubt that there is laches on the part of this Presiding Officer but a party should not suffer for that reason. The document In question is very well could have been sent by the learned Assistant District Judge to that Presiding Officer who failed to sign the document by post and it would have come back to him. Further this matter can be looked from the angle of S.99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that also will show for such irregularity a Judgment should not be set aside, in this connection Shri Sarma, learned Advocate for the petitioner places reliance on AIR 1976 Delhi 22 (Delhi Development Authority v. Shiv Charan). That was a case where a deposition was recorded by the Presiding Officer, but that was not signed by the Presiding Officer. A question was raised that whether that will be a valid deposition or not. On the basis of that deposition the matter was decided and then there was an appeal and in the appeal the question was whether that can be deemed to be a valid deposition. A Single Judge pointed out as follows :-

(2.) I respectfully agree with this decision and I hold that the omission to sign the exhibit which was accepted by both sides as a piece of document and which was marked in presence of both the parties the failure to sign it by the presiding officer should not vitiate a Judgment and a Judgment cannot be deemed to be a nullity. Accordingly the earlier order of the learned Munsiff which was set aside under Order 9, Rule 13 shall hold the field. The impugned Judgment shall stand quashed. Order accordingly.