1. We do not consider that the posting of a notice upon the notice board of the Court announcing the result of the appeal was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Order XX Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the pronouncement of judgments in open court.
2. We agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Bai Dahi v. Hargovan Das I.L.R(1906) 30 Bom. 155 that a practice of omitting to pronounce judgment in open court is both inconvenient to the parties and in direct opposition to an express provision of the law.
3. When the vakils addressed the District Judge on Monday the 15th March 1920 as to the appeal, the appeal was still pending for want of a delivered judgment. The District Judge had thus jurisdiction at. that, time to receive a etition of compromise and to pass the necessary orders upon it. His order declining jurisdiction must now be set aside; and he is directed to take the petition on file and dispose of it according to law.
4. Costs of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in this Court will be borne by respondents.