Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jahoor Ahmad and others 387
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2011
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. DIXIT, J.
Civil Application No. 16(O) of 2010
Gopal Singh Visharad ...Petitioner
Versus.
Jahoor Ahmad and others ...Respondent
With:
Civil Application No. 17(O) of 2010; Civil
Application No. 18(O) of 2010; Civil
Application NO. 19(O) of 2010; Objection
No. 20 of 1989; C.M. Application No.
21(O) of 2010; C.M. Application No.
22(O) of 2010; C.M. Application No.
23(O); C.M. Application No. 24 (O) of
2010
(A)-Code of Civil Procedure-Section 2(2)-
Distinction between “judgment” and
'Decree' explained judgment contains
reasons and conclusions-but decree
contains formal expression of an
adjudication determining rights of the
parties.
Held: Para 37
The distinction between the "judgment"
and "decree", therefore, is that the
judgment contains reasons as well as the
conclusions thereof but the decree
contains formal expression of an
adjudication conclusively determining
right of parties with regard to all or any
of the matter in controversy in the suit.
The phrase "all matters in controversy in
the suit" would cover the ultimate
conclusion and adjudication made by the
Court which should form part of decree
as it is this part which has to be normally
put on for execution as provided in Part
II of CPC. It talks of execution of
"decree" and not of the judgment. It is
for this reason Section 33 provides that
after the case has been heard, the Court
shall pronounce judgment and on such
judgment a decree shall follow. It is the
conclusive determination, therefore,
which must be expressed formally in the
decree and not the conclusions on
various grounds/ issues considered by
the Judge in judgment. In the context
we are of the view that adjudication
determining conclusively rights of
parties by the Court, which obviously
being the majority decision
would/should contain the part of decree
and not just and mere "expression"
given by all the Judges.
(B)-C.P.C. Order XX Rule-7-Date of
Decree-should be the date when
judgment signed-Signature of judges on
decree may be on different date but the
date of Decree must bear the same date
of judgment.
Held: Para 45
This is also evident from Order XX Rule 8
which provides that decree can be signed
by another Judge where the Judge
pronouncing the judgment vacated the
office without signing decree or if the
Court cease to exist, as the case may be.
In this case also D.V. Sharma, J.
pronounced the judgment and retired on
01.10.2010. Hence there was/is no
occasion for him to sign the decree. V.K.
Dixit, J. has been nominated to the
Bench who can sign the decree but
obviously he would not mention the date
30.09.2010 under his signatures. The
Judge's signature, therefore, may
contain the date when sign the decree
but the date of decree would be the date
of pronouncement of judgment. The
objection, therefore, suggesting that the
date of decree must be changed as the
date when signed, is hereby rejected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1946 Madras 348; AIR 1950 Orissa
125(FB); AIR 1954 Hyderabad 104; AIR 1961
MP 223; AIR 1962 Patna 398; AIR 1969
Gujarat 152; (2000) 1 LRI 606