Lilawati Kunwar Vs. Chote Singh and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Tudball and ;Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.|
|Respondent||Chote Singh and ors.|
.....(1908), order xx, rule 2 - judgment--judgment written by the judge who heard the case after he had ceased to be a judge of the court in which the case was tried, and pronounced by his successors in office. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot..........officers in support of the allegation of reversion of mr. piari lal. if it is contended that mr. piari lal reverted on the 22nd of december, 1916, the day upon which the arguments were concluded, it does not follow that he had not made up his mind what to do in the case. if he wrote the judgment after he ceased to be a subordinate judge, when he had reverted to his substantive appointment) of a munsif, that would not vitiate the judgment in any way, a similar point was raised in the case of basant bihari, ghoshal v. the secretary of state for india in council (1918) i.l.r. 35 all. 368. it was held in that case that ' a judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor in office, and this notwithstanding that at the time the judgment was written the judge who.....
Tudball and Muhammad, Rafiq, JJ.
1. The second point urged on behalf of the plaintiff is that, there is no judgment in law in the present case, inasmuch as the judgment under appeal was-written by Mr. Piari Lal after he had ceased to be a Subordinate Judge. It appears that Mr. Piari Lal was officiating Subordinate Judge at Aligarh when the case was argued before him, He reverted, it is said, immediately after conclusion of the arguments in the case, and we are referred to the History of Gazetted Officers in support of the allegation of reversion of Mr. Piari Lal. If it is contended that Mr. Piari Lal reverted on the 22nd of December, 1916, the day upon which the arguments were concluded, it does not follow that he had not made up his mind what to do in the case. If he wrote the judgment after he ceased to be a Subordinate Judge, when he had reverted to his substantive appointment) of a Munsif, that would not vitiate the judgment in any way, A similar point was raised in the case of Basant Bihari, Ghoshal v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1918) I.L.R. 35 All. 368. It was held in that case that ' a Judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor in office, and this notwithstanding that at the time the judgment was written the Judge who wrote it had ceased to be the Judge of the court in which the case was tried.' The ' same view was taken in a Full Bench case by the Calcutta High Court, Satyendra Nath Ray Chaudhari v. Kastura Kumari Ghatwalin (1908) I.L.R. 85 Calc. 756. In view of these two cases the contention for the plaintiff appellant is untenable.
2. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs. Only one set of fees is allowed against the plaintiff.