Judgement Section- 2(9) of CPC 1908

The word ‘judgement’ is derived after combining two words namely, judge and statement. It can also be termed as an act of judging. It is the conclusion or the result of judging.

Or in other words

According to Section 2(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure, “Judge” means the presiding officer of a Civil Court, Whereas Section 2(9) defines Judgment, – “judgment” means the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order.

Landmark Judgement
Swaran Lata Ghosh vs H. K. Banerjee And Anr, 1969

Facts Of the Case

HK Banerjee (Plaintiff) claims that he deposited 15000 INR in two Installments to the Swarn Lata Husband (Defendant) BK Ghosh for specific purposes in 1948. Ghosh was practising as an attorney-at-law in the High Court of Calcutta. He died in August 1950..

Plaintiff only produce Bank Statement in the evidence of alleged deposit but not produce any document regarding the contract or other documentary proofs , as per the plaintiff the contract was of oral nature.

Defendant filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. She denied that the sums of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 10,000 were entrusted to or deposited with her husband as alleged by the plaintiff.

The trial of the suit commenced before Court Of First instance

he learned Judge by order dated August 17, 1962, passed the following order :

“There will be a decree for Rs. 15,000 with interest on judgment on Rs. 15,000 at 6% per annum and costs. No interim interest allowed.“

Against the decree Swaran Lata appealed to the High Court under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent,

The High Court, however, modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and declared that the liability of the defendants was not personal and was limited only to “the assets and properties” of Ghosh received by them. With special leave, Swaran Lata Ghosh has appealed to this Court.

With special leave, Swaran Lata Ghosh has appealed to Supreme Court

Supreme Court held :

Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution.

A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge : a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest : it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court, will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case in the plaint.

The plaintiff’s case was founded upon extracts of Bank ac- counts : the extracts however do not evidence the agreement under which the money passed from the plaintiff to Ghosh. The plaintiff had to prove not only that money passed from him to Ghosh; he had to prove, that money passed under the agreement pleaded by him. Oral testimony of the plaintiff had to be examined in the context of several weighty circumstances e.g. complete absence of documentary evidence in the handwriting of Ghosh; absence of correspondence relating to the transactions between Ghosh and the plaintiff; absence of books of account in support of the transactions; improbability of a transaction of the nature pleaded between an attorney and the plaintiff; absence of any previous business or professional relationship between Ghosh and the plaintiff; absence of vouchers supporting the alleged payment of interest and repayment of part of the principal and other important circumstances. In reaching a conclusion the Court had to consider the probabilities and the circumstances in which the plaintiff alleged that he had deposited the two sums of money with Ghosh. It was essentially a case in which there should have been a full record of the reasons which persuaded the learned Trial Judge to reach the conclusion he did. A mere order direct- ing payment of the money, not supported by reasons, does not do duty for a judgment according to law.

RESULT Of the Suit – Re Trial

We are, therefore, constrained to come to the conclusion that there has been no real trial of the defendants’ case. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs that eighteen years after the date on which the suit was instituted, we have to remand the suit for trial according to law. But we see no other satisfactory alternative.

Essentials Elements of a Judgement

Balram Taneja Vs Sunil Madan AIR 1999 SC 3381, in this case, the Supreme court held that a cannot merely say ‘suit decreed’ or ‘suit dismissed’. The whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. The judgment need not, however, be a decision on all the issues in a case. Thus, an order deciding a preliminary issue in a case, for example – constitutional validity of a statute, is a judgment.

Alteration of judgment (Order –XX Rule -3)

Generally, Judgement is pronounces on the final stage at once, but there are certain exceptions which are as follows –

(1) mistake Apparent on the face of it
(2) in case of review
(3) clerical or arithmetical mistakes

Pronouncement of a Judgement

According to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

Pronouncement of a Judgement (Order – XX , Rule -1)

When the trial in Court is over, the Judge should proceed at once, or as soon as possible to the consideration of his judgment. If the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavor shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days, from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, but where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded

And also if the judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and in every case the due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders).

Copy of the Judgement

Once the judgement is pronounced the copies of that particular judgement should be immediately made available to the parties on payment of costs as specified, by the party applying for such copy, of such charges as may be specified in the rules and orders made by the High Court (H.C.) Such a rule is specified in Order XX Rule 6-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

According to Rule 4 Order XX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Judgments of a Court of Small Causes are satisfactory if they contain the points for determination and the decision thereon

Judgments of other Courts shall contain:

Summary of the pleadings which is a concise statement of the case;
Issues which are the points for determination;
Findings on each issue and the decision thereon;
Ratio decidendi (reasons for such a decision); and
The remedy, which is the relief granted.

Order XX of CPC which lays down time limit for pronouncing judgment does not apply to High Courts: Supreme Court

Order XX of CPC which lays down time limit for pronouncing judgment doesn’t apply to High Courts: Supreme Court(SJVNL v. M/s CCC HIM JV)-:
In a request passed on February 12,2021, a Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and BR Gavai said that if there is a six months break between holding a judgment and conveying it, either gathering can move an application to the Chief Justice of the High Court, who may then conclude that the matter be heard anew.
“A perusing of our judgment in Anil Rai versus Territory of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 318] and, para 9 specifically, clarifies that Order 20 of the CPC doesn’t have any significant bearing to the High Court,“

Even an ex-parte judgement/ order has to be on merits

In the matter of: Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya V/s Anil Pajwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508, while considering the provisions of Order IX, Rule 6 and Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC, it was observed that even if the suit proceeds ex-parte under Order IX, Rule 6 of the CPC, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of its case cannot be dispensed with.

In the matter of: Maya Devi V/s Lalta Prasad, (2015) 5 SCC 588, it was held that the absence of defendant to contest the suit does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree.

In the matter of: Meenakshisundaram Textiles V/s Valliammal Textiles, 2011 (3) CTC 168, it was held that, even an ex-parte judgment should contain reasons. It was held that:

“… The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent.”

Every judgment passed by a court of law has to be on merits, irrespective of the fact, whether or not, the defendant appears before the court of law and defends himself.