NATHU RAM Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge first Class, Karnal granting the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 5,900/- with costs against the defendant. It is not necessary to consider the merits of the controversy, because the appeal has to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge set aside on another point.

(2.) IT appears that on 20th of December, 1951, which was the date fixed for arguments, the counsel for the parties stated that they wanted to file written arguments instead of addressing the court orally. The Court acceded to this request and directed that the written arguments should be filed on 24th of December, 1951. On the 24th of December, written arguments were put in and the case was adjourned for orders to the 29th of December, 1951. We, however, find from the record that the orders were actually announced on the 26th of instead of the 29th, the date fixed on the 24th of December,. On the 26th of December, 1951 Mr. Bhim Sen Advocate, counsel for the defendants, first signed his name as a token of having noted the announcement of the judgment but a little later he returned and scored out his signature. But then he was again made by the Court to affix his signatures which he did. There is a note at the bottom of the judgment to this effect, and indeed we find that the learned subordinate Judge put down 11-45 a. m. as the time of appending his note. The need for nothing the time is not disclosed, nor is it understood by us. We also find that 29th of December, 1951, the date fixed on 24th of December, 1951 for announcement of orders, was changed to 26th of december, 1951 and according to the note in the margin this change was effected on 27th of december, 1951, i. e. , one day after the actual announcement of the orders. Both the English and the Urdu records tally with each other so far as this change in the date is concerned and both the records show that this change was effected on 27th of December, 1951, though this alteration is not initialled by anybody.

(3.) THE change in the digit '9' of '29th December,' is clearly in different ink and obviously appears to have been made subsequent to the time of writing the order on 24th of December, 1951. No explanation is forthcoming on the record of the Court below as to why and in what circumstances this preponement of the date for the announcement of orders was effected.