Report No. 27
Order XX, rule 1
1. This is in implementation of the Fourteenth Report1. The main object is to provide that the Judge need not read out the full judgment, and that it would suffice if the findings and the final order are pronounced.
2. Certain local Amendments2 to rule 1 provide for dictation of the judgment3, but it is considered, that no express provision is necessary on the subject.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. e.g. Madras Amendment.
7. Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 367(1).
Order XX, rule 2
1. Order XX, rule 2 provides that a Judge may pronounce a judgment written, but not pronounced by his predecessor. Though the word used is "may", one view is, that the rule casts a duty on the succeeding Judge, and it is mandatory upon the succeeding Judge to pronounce the judgment written by his predecessor, and he cannot re-open the whole matter1. But a contrary view has been taken in some cases. The former view supports itself on the ground, that the Legislature did not intend to leave an uncontrolled and unregulated discretion to the succeeding Judge, and that a duty is cast on the Judge to pronounce a judgment in the interests of the public and to save time.
2. The section seems to confer a power, but also contemplates that the power should ordinarily be exercised. It is, however, considered unnecessary to insert any rigid rule. No change is, therefore, suggested.
1. N. Venkatesu v. N. Suryanarayana, AIR 1959 AP 16 (DB). Hargulal v. Abdul Gany, ILR 14 Rang 136: AIR 1936 Rang 147 (149) (FB); Lachman Prasad v. Ram Kishan, ILR 33 All 236 (Knox and Karamat Hussain JJ.).
Order XX, rule 6 and registered address
The question whether a provision should be inserted to the effect that the decree should mention the address for service (consequential on the proposed addition of a rule1 requiring a pleading to be accompanied by the address for service) has been considered. (Compare the amendment made by the High Courts of Madras and Lahore).
It is felt, that no such provision is necessary.
1. See Order 6, rule 14A (proposed).
Order XX, rule 11
Certain local Amendments1 provide, that where the court proposes to pass an order for payment by instalments, the decree-holder shall be given an opportunity of being heard, but his consent should not be required. One result of this would be, that the court has to exercise a judicial discretion, and the order would be appealable under section 47, as has been held in cases under the similar Madras Amendment2.
It is considered that such a change need not be made. The present provision is a good and just one.
2. See Madras and Nagpur Amendments.
3. See case-law reviewed in Muthuswami v. Ramu, AIR 1958 Mad 460.
Order XX, rule 12
1. This rule is new, and is intended to provide that a decree for specific performance of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property should specify the period within which the purchase money or other amount is to be paid.
2. An elaborate provision regarding decrees for specific performance of such contracts was suggested in an earlier report of the Law Commission1. The recommendation there was to the effect, that complete relief (such as possession, etc., rescission, refund of earnest money, etc.), in such a suit should be available by application in the suit itself (instead of in execution as at present), and that appropriate provision should be made in the Civil Procedure Code enabling such applications to be made and orders thereon and also for appeals.
3. It is considered, that so far as a provision authorising the making of an application and orders thereon is concerned, section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (read with section 22) would be adequate. So far as appeals from such orders are concerned, the orders, it is considered, would fall within the definition of "decree" given in section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is thought, that the only specific provision which is required is to the effect that the decree should specify the period for payment of the purchase-money or other amount due under the decree.
Necessary amendment is proposed.
1. 9th Report (Specific Relief Act).
Order XX, rule 19
This is consequential1.
It is considered unnecessary to amend Order XX, rule 19(3).
1. See Order 8, rule 6A (proposed).