1. On Sunday, the 18th of June 1905, the Munsif made an inspection of the spot. The parties came to a compromise which was embodied in. a rubkar. The Munsif on the same day gave a decree on the compromise. The defendant appealed to the District Judge, who, while upholding the defendant's contention that the decree was void having been passed on a dies non dismissed it on other grounds. The defendant appeals to this Court on the ground that the decree, being passed on a Sunday, was null and void. It is admitted that there is no authority of this Court directly bearing upon the question raised in this appeal. I am referred to the ruling in Ram Das Chakarbati v. The Official Liquidator, Cotton Ginning Company, Limited, Cawnpore (1887) I.L.R., 9 All., 360. I am asked to infer from this ruling that a decree passed on a Sunday should be held null and void. No such inference, in my opinion is warranted. For the respondents it is contended that the Court of first instance in disposing of the case on a Sunday committed a mere irregularity, which is covered by the provisions of Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceedings were held on the Sunday by consent oil parties. I am of opinion that under these circumstances the Munsif in disposing of the case the same day committed merely an irregularity. It is not shown that this irregularity affected the merits of the case or that the Munsif had no jurisdiction.
2. In a case of Ununto Ram Chatterjee v. Protab Chunder Shiromonee (1871) 10 W.R.C.R., 230, the objection taken was against the admission of a plaint on a Sunday. The objection was overruled.
3. I dismiss the appeal with costs.