BARAMDEO PANDEY Vs. DEBI DAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his suit. There are only three grounds of appeal and all are based on the same point that the presiding officer had no jurisdiction to pass a judgment, because he had retired from office on 4 October 1927. We are not referred to any notice in the Gazette or in the Civil List to show the actual date of retirement, but the counsel says that he has a letter from the Registrar of this Court to the effect that the retirement of the learned District Judge Chaudhri Abdul Hasan, took effect from 4 October 1927. We may however point out that this statement does not show on what date the resignation of the District Judge was actually accepted, and in the ordinary course it would be accepted at a date long subsequent to 4 October 1927, the date from which it had retrospective effect.

(2.) The judgment was signed on 9 October 1927, and was pronounced in Court by the successor of the District Judge on 17 October 1927. The short question before us is whether this judgment was validly pronounced under Order 20, Rule 2, which states: A Judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor.

(3.) It was argued for the appellant that when the Judge who wrote the judgment retired, he ceased to be a Judge at all, and therefore he cannot be considered to be the predecessor of the Judge who pronounced the judgment within the meaning of Order 20, Rule 2. No definite authority was shown for this argument. But reference was made to a number of rulings. In Chinnu Pillai V/s. Kalimuthu Chetti [1912] 35 Mad. 47, there was a ruling of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court and at p. 51 it is stated that as one of the five Judges who heard the appeal argued had resigned office, the Chief Justice directed that the Bench which would deliver judgment would consist only of the four remaining Judges. No definite decision was made as to whether the judgment of the learned Judge who had resigned was a judgment valid in law or not; but at p. 57 that judgment is appended and it was appended under the orders of the Chief Justice. No authority for the proposition can be deduced from this ruling.