Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 163

2.23. Clause 28 of the Amendment Bill.-

Several amendments suggested in Order XX appear to be actuated by a concern for transparency and promptness. We shall deal with each of the proposed amendments separately.

(i) The words "but a copy of the whole judgment shall be made available for the perusal of the parties or the pleaders immediately after the judgment is pronounced" in sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of Order XX are evidently proposed to be deleted in the light of proposed rule 6B. Rule 6B says that where the judgment is pronounced (which obviously means where a prepared judgment is pronounced), copies of the judgments shall be made available to the parties immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment for preferring an appeal on payment of appropriate charges.

In this sense the deletion of the aforesaid words from sub-rule (2) of rule 1 is unobjectionable. But what was suggested by some of the members of the judiciary was that the requirement of supplying copies of the judgment immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment was difficult because of several practical difficulties and that the requirement should be to supply copies of the judgment within three days. In other words, the words "immediately after" occurring in rule 6B ought to be substituted by the words "within three days of".

It was submitted that in many cities and towns, the facilities by way of zerox and photocopying were not immediately available or even if available there would be practical difficulties in photocopying and supplying copies of the judgments on the day of their pronouncement. The proposal appears to be based upon experience of the judicial officers and in our opinion ought to be respected and given effect to. The matter can be reviewed at a later stage, if necessary.

On many occasions, orders/judgments are dictated in court. In such cases, it is not possible to comply with the requirements of rule 6B. A clarification with regard to proposed rule 68 may, therefore, be necessary to indicate, that the requirement of this rule would be attracted only after the order/judgment is transcribed, corrected and signed, in cases where the order/ judgment is dictated in the court.

(ii) The provisions contained in the proposed rule 6A are unexceptionable. Sub-rule (2) of rule 6A may, however, be clarified by adding a proviso to the effect that where an appeal is preferred on the basis of the judgment on the ground that the decree had not been drafted or made available, the appeal so preferred shall not be treated as defective provided that the copy of the decree is filed within a reasonable period after the preparation of the decree.

The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys