Judgement Pronounced In Open Court But Signed After Transfer Of Judge A Valid Judgement : Bombay High Court

A judgement pronounced in open court but signed by the judge after he was transferred is a valid judgement, the Bombay High Court has held.

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh relied on several Supreme Court judgements which held that once a judgement was delivered or pronounced in open court, the manner of delivery couldn’t be faulted.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner in a partition suit challenged an order setting aside the status quo in her favour on the ground that the judge signed the order after he was transferred. The defendants were Mangal Prabhat Lodha and another.

“Although I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner that the judgment was signed after transfer of charge in view of the roznama on record and date below the signature, the aforesaid decisions are relied upon to drive home the point that judicial act of pronouncement of judgment in open court was complete and hence no fault can be found in the manner of delivery,” the court held and dismissed the petition.

“The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh (supra), has held that the judgment to be operative does not await signing thereof by the Court. It is not that after pronouncement the judgment was altered,” the court noted.

The judicial act of pronouncement was performed and the signing and sealing, which are the rules designed to secure certainty about its contents and matter remained, which as held by the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors (supra), can be cured, the bench added.

The petitioner Suvarna Taras challenged an order passed in February 2023 by the Civil Court by which it partly allowed an appeal filed by the defendant in a partition suit.

In her original plaint from 2019, Suvarna sought partition and possession of her share in four properties in Pune. She also sought a declaration that five sale deeds or agreement of sale deeds executed by her father and brothers in favour of Managalprabhat Lodha were not binding on her.

The trial court party allowed her interim application and directed all the defendants to maintain status quo. Two of the defendant’s filed a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal which was partly allowed, and the order of status quo was set aside to the extent of 6,800 meters.

Original petitioner Suvarna Taras approached the high court against the order.

Advocate Vikram Walwalkar argued for the petitioner while Advocate Amogh Singh along with Jeet Gandhi argued for the respondent.

The petitioners contended that the judgement indicates it was signed on February 23, 2023. However, on March 16, 2023 the judge was transferred with immediate effect from District Judge 1 to District Judge 9. The web status showed the judgement was signed on March 27, 2023 and uploaded on March 29, 2023.

Advocate for the defendants submitted that the judgement was pronounced in open court in the presence of both parties and the roznama states this fact. Moreover, the suit itself was barred by limitation as it was instituted in 2019 despite the petitioner learning about the transfer in 2012.

Moreover, 2925 residential units in 28 buildings, 26 country houses and 28 villas have been completed on the plot, Lodha claimed.

The judge noted that the balance of favour was with the defendant who purchased the property almost 11 years before the suit was instituted and created third party rights.

Ancestral properties which have been alienated could be adjusted against the share of other coparceners at the time of final adjudication, the court said.

Regarding the petitioner’s contention that the judgement was signed subsequently, court relied on the judgement of Surendra Singh and Others which delves into what constitutes a judgement.

“Thus, if a judgment happens not to be signed and is inadvertently acted on and executed, the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good despite defects in the mode of its subsequent authentication.”

Case title - Suvarna Ratnakar Taras Vs Mangalprabhat Lodha

Click Here To Read/Download Order