Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Karnataka Cement Pipes Factory Eng. and Contractors, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging a Roznama entry dated 18.02.2023 in Arbitration Suit No. 1/2021/A pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Quepem. The Roznama recorded that the suit was dismissed after hearing arguments. However, no signed judgment or order was ever delivered or placed on record. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 03.03.2023, but the application was dismissed on 12.06.2023 on the ground that the copy of the order was not ready in the court file. The Presiding Officer who made the pronouncement was subsequently transferred, and her successor rejected the certified copy application. The petitioner contended that the Roznama entry did not constitute a valid judgment under Section 33 and Order XX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as no signed judgment existed. The respondents argued that the pronouncement in open court was sufficient. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 33 and Order XX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which require that a judgment be signed and dated. The court held that a mere Roznama entry without a signed judgment is not a valid judgment and cannot be treated as such. The court noted that the Roznama entry was not a judgment but only a record of proceedings. The court further observed that the petitioner's right to obtain a certified copy was frustrated because there was no judgment to copy. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Roznama entry dated 18.02.2023, and directed the trial court to hear and decide Arbitration Suit No. 1/2021/A afresh on merits, preferably within six months. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the matter and not to be influenced by any observations made in the impugned Roznama.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment - Validity of Pronouncement - Sections 33, Order XX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court considered whether a Roznama entry recording dismissal of an arbitration suit without a signed and dated judgment constitutes a valid judgment. Held that a mere Roznama entry without a signed judgment is not a valid judgment and cannot be acted upon. The court directed the trial court to hear and decide the suit afresh on merits. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Certified Copy - Right to Obtain - Section 76, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the alleged judgment, but the application was rejected as the judgment was not available in the court file. Held that the rejection was justified as there was no signed judgment to copy. (Paras 4-5) C) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Judge - Effect on Pending Judgments - The Presiding Officer who pronounced the judgment was transferred before signing the judgment. The successor judge rejected the certified copy application. Held that the pronouncement without signing is incomplete and the successor cannot complete it. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Roznama entry recording dismissal of a suit without a signed and dated judgment constitutes a valid judgment under Section 33 and Order XX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Roznama dated 18.02.2023, and directed the trial court to hear and decide Arbitration Suit No. 1/2021/A afresh on merits, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Judgment must be signed and dated
- Pronouncement without signed judgment is invalid
- Roznama entry cannot substitute judgment
- Duty of court to deliver signed judgment
- Right to certified copy
