An examination of the record confirms that the impugned judgments were not written, signed and pronounced on the ‘date of hearing’. The respondent also does not controvert the contents of the applications nor has referred to the order-sheets of the Lahore High Court to rebut the contention of the petitioner. If dates had been inscribed on the impugned judgments, there would have been no difficulty in calculating the start and end of the prescribed sixty day period within which the petitions for leave to appeal had to be filed. Instead, considerable court time was wasted to ascertain when the impugned judgments were written, signed and pronounced, and having done so to then proceed to determine whether the petitions were filed within time. But these are not the only cases in which time has been wasted in trying to ascertain when a judgment was written, signed and pronounced. A practice is developing of not inscribing the date when the judgment is written, signed and pronounced. And at times the date when the case was earlier heard is mentioned as the date of the judgment, even though the judgment is written, signed and pronounced later.
To resolve such anomalous situations it would be appropriate to consider and determine the following questions:
Q1. Does a judgment have to be dated?
Q2. What are the consequences if a judgment does not mention the date when it was written, signed and pronounced?
Q3. When a judgment, which does not mention when it was written, signed and pronounced, is challenged should the surrounding circumstances and record be considered to determine whether the challenge has been made within the prescribed period?
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’) defines what a judgment is - “judgment” means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order.
Therefore, in regards to the aforesaid queries an order is included when referring to a judgment.
Every judgment must inscribe the date when it is written, signed and pronounced because this, as discussed above, is what the law mandates; the above noted Q1 is accordingly answered.
As regards Q2, there may be serious consequences for parties if the challenge to a judgment is disallowed because it was incorrectly ascertained when it was signed or objection to belated filing could not be taken because the date of signing and pronouncement was incorrectly assumed to be later than when it was actually signed and pronounced.
That with regard to Q3, in addition to wasting the time of the courts’ personnel, valuable court time is also wasted in ascertaining when an impugned judgment may have been written, signed and pronounced, and then to determine whether it was assailed within the time prescribed for doing so.
We are conscious of the fact that no one should be prejudiced due to an act of a court. Therefore, when judgments are belatedly written or wherein the date of signing and pronouncement is not mentioned its consequences should not be suffered by litigants. Accordingly, the answers to the said three questions should not be construed to undermine the right of litigants.
Any impression that judges want to escape criticism or accountability by not inscribing the date on a belatedly written judgment must be assiduously dispelled. This Court must lead by example and do away with the practice, sometimes resorted to, of not inscribing the date when a judgment is actually written, signed and pronounced. This Court holds judges of other courts to account, therefore, it is all the more incumbent upon it to abide by the same standard.
C.P.1854-L/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore v. Sui Northern Area Gas Pipeline Limited, Lahore
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa
29-09-2022
0 Comments