ABDULLA Vs. ABDUL HATIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRILLE , J.C. 1. The judgment in the suit in the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, which is the subject of this application in revision, runs as follows : Judgment dated 16th January 1933. Claim decreed against defendant for Rs. 36-8-0 with costs. M. L. Srivastava, Judge, 16th January 1933.

(2.) IT is obvious that this is no judgment at all. The judgment itself is not even written but consists of an impression from a rubber stamp which is obviously intended to be used when a claim is decreed ex parte or on confession since these alternatives are provided in the rubber stamp, and the intention is that in uncontested eases the inappropriate alternative should be scored out. In this case both the alternatives have been scored out and the rubber stamp has been used as a substitute for a written judgment. The use of a rubber stamp in a contested suit is most reprehensible. A judgment in a Court of Small Causes must specifically set out points for determination and the decision thereon. This is patently impossible when a rubber stamp is used. Apart from the fact that the judgment contains no element from which the points for decision may be deduced, there is the added danger that such a stamp may, in stress of work, be mistakenly applied in a contested case. The learned Judge may have thought that the fact that he has set out a point for determination after the pleadings on the record is sufficient, but it is not sufficient. Order 20, Rule 4, Civil P. C., lays down that a judgment in such Court "need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon," but these points must be included in the judgment.