ထပ်မံ၍လျှောက်လဲချက်မကြားနာပဲချမှတ်သည့်စီရင်ချက်မှာဥပဒေအရမတည်နိုင်ပေ။

ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

Allahabad High Court

Mt. Kaushillya vs Arat Lal 

on 25 October, 1932

Equivalent citations: AIR 1933 All 196, 

                                    150 Ind Cas 532

Author: Sulaiman

JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J.

အမှုတွင်၊တရားသူကြီးကအမှုကိုအပြည့်အဝကြားနာစစ်ဆေးခြင်းမပြုဘဲချမှတ်သောစီရင်ချက်သည်ပျက်ပြယ်ကြောင်းအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. 

An affidavit was filed in this Court to the effect that a part of the statement of a witness recorded by the Judge in the body of the order of that date and struck out by him was the statement as made by the plaintiff Arath Lal and that what was recorded on the earlier page as his statement was not the whole statement of Arathi Lal and further that the finishing of the statement of the process-server and the pronouncement of the order of rejection of the restoration application of the petitioner were done simultaneously and that the deponent was convinced that the Judge recorded, or more specifically, commenced the recording of the order before he finished the entire evidence of the case. 

If this were absolutely true, it would undoubtedly show that there has been a gross irregularity in the trial of the case and that the learned Judge made his mind to dismiss the suit before hearing the whole evidence and before hearing the arguments of counsel. 

Obviously, as the incident happened several months ago, the Judge is not likely to have a clear recollection of what happened. 

He does not believe that the allegations of the deponent can be true, but he admits in his report that he started writing the judgment when the arguments were going on and, during the argument of one of the counsel, quoted the statement of a witness. 

He also says that he mechanically "translated" that statement in the course of the judgment.

2. As the statement was not in the vernacular there was no question of translating it, but it could only be a question of reproducing it. 

Curiously enough, the statement of Arath Lal was written after the remarks in the order: 

"The applicant's story is improbable, I do not believe it." 

This opinion was noted while the arguments were still going on. 

This in itself was objectionable. 

It is noteworthy that the opposite party has not thought fit to file any affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. 

It is a significant fact that some more statements appear in the portion cut out from the body of the order than what appeared in the statement recorded on the previous page. 

For instance, "as surety for Jhaggar" or "and I have got a receipt" are statements which did not find any place in the statement as previously recorded. 

Here it may be added that the word which could not be deciphered by anyone at the date of the previous hearing and which was taken to be "moneys" is stated by the Judge to be in this Court to the effect that a part an examination of the word with the help of a magnifying glass it would at the utmost be "smns" or smnes" but not "summons." 

I am not satisfied that the disposal of this case has been quite regular and according to law. 

I accordingly allow this revision, and setting aside the order of the Court below send the case back to that Court for disposal according" to law. 

Costs will abide the event.

3. In view of what has happened I think that in the interests of justice this case should be transferred from the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, to that of the Court of Mr. J.K. Dar, Munsif, West Allahabad. I accordingly make that order Section 24. Civil P.C.”

——————————

Madras High Court

The American Baptist Foreign ... vs Amalanadhuni Pattabhiramayya ... 

on 18 February, 1918

Equivalent citations: 48 Ind Cas 859

Bench: W Ayling, S Aiyar

JUDGMENT Appeal No. 368.

အမှုတွင်၊လျှောက်လဲချက်ကိုတစိတ်တပိုင်းကြားနာပြီးနောက်၊အမှုသည်တဦးသေဆုံးသွားရာတွင်တရားဝင်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်ကိုထည့်သွင်းခြင်းမပြုဘဲတရားရုံးကစီရင်ချက်ချမှတ်လျှင်၊အမှုကိုအပြည့်အဝကြားနာစစ်ဆေးခြင်းမရှိ၍ပျက်ပြယ်ကြောင်းအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“2. On the merits we think the Subordinate Judge has come to the right conclusion. 

The evidence has been discussed by him fully and we see no reason to differ from him. 

At the last moment an argument was advanced to the effect that the decree against the appellant is a nullity. 

The facts bearing on this point are these: 

The case was argued after evidence was let in on the 19th of April 1916. 

It was adjourned to the 26th for further arguments. 

On the 20th, 14th defendant died: no legal representative of his was brought on the record and judgment was delivered on 3rd May, holding among other things that the alienation in favour of the 14th defendant was not binding on the plaintiff. 

The present 2nd appellant is the legal representative of the deceased 14th defendant. 

It is contended on her behalf that the decree passed behind her back after her husband's death was without jurisdiction and we are con-strained to uphold this contention. 

Before Order XXII, Rule 6, was enacted it was held by this Court in Raghunatha Thatha Chariar v. Venkatesa Tauker 26 M. 101 :12 M.L.J. 435 that a judgment pronounced after the argument was closed must be taken to speak not from the date on which it was actually pronounced but from and on the date that the judgment was reserved after argument. 

Order XXII, Rule 6, gives legislative sanction to this view of the law.

After the new rule was enacted, it was held in Subramania Aiyar v. Vaithinatha Aiyar 31 Ind. Cas.198: 38 M. 682 that a judgment pronounced under similar circumstances would be a nullity: Vide also Vishvanath Dnyanoba v. Lallu Kabla 4 Ind. Cas. 137 : 11 Bom. L.R. 1070 and Narendra Bahadur Chand v. Gopal Sah 20 Ind. Cas. 506 : 17 C.L.J. 634 Mr. Ramadoss contended that, the spirit of Order XXII, Rule 6, will be satisfied, if the 14th defendant's arguments were heard before his death although the other parties had not concluded their, arguments. 

We are enable to accept this contention. 

Order XX, Rule 1, to which the learned Vakil for the appellants drew our attention, contemplates that all the arguments should be heard before the case can be regarded as ripe for judgment. 

The view of ' the Judical Committee in Radha Prasad Singh v. Lal Sahib Rai 13 A. 53 : 17 1.A. 150: 5 Sar. P.C.J. 600: 7 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 33 is also to the same effect. 

We must, therefore, hold that the decree passed against the 2nd appellant was made without jurisdiction, That decree must be set aside and the case should be remanded to the Subordinate Judge so far as the 2nd appellant is concerned. 

The lower Court will have to deal with any application that may be made to it to bring in the legal representative of the 14th defendant. 

The costs will abide the result. 

The appeal so far as the 11th defendant is concerned is dismissed with costs.”

———————————————-

1976 BLR 81 

မအမာဘီပါ၂ နှင့် ဒေါ်သန်းရင်

ဥက္ကဌအဖြစ်ဦးကြည်မြ၊အဖွဲ့ဝင်များအဖြစ်ဦးလွင်မောင်နှင့်ဦးစိုးလှိုင်တို့ပါဝင်သောဗဟိုတရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ရှေ့တွင်

အမှုတွင်၊လျှောက်လဲချက်ကြားနာစစ်ဆေးပြီးနောက်၊စီရင်ချက်မချမှတ်မီတရားသူကြီးပြောင်းရွှေ့သွားလျှင်၊ဆက်ခံသည့်တရားသူကြီးသည်လျှောက်လဲချက်ကိုပြန်လည်ကြားနာပြီးမှသာလျင်စီရင်ချက်ချမှတ်နိုင်ကြောင်းဗဟိုတရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“ထပ်မံဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်။   ။ယခုအမှုမှာမူစစ်ဆေးဆဲအဆင့်တွင်မဟုတ်ပဲနှစ်ဘက်ကိုစစ်ဆေးပြီးနှစ်ဘက်လျှောက်လဲချက်များကြားနာပြီးမှတရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ဝင်နှစ်ဦးပြောင်းလဲခဲ့သည်။

ပြောင်းလဲခဲ့သည့်တရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ကနှစ်ဘက်အမှုသည်များ၏လျှောက်လဲချက်များကိုထပ်မံ၍မကြားနာပဲစီရင်ချက်ချမှတ်ခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။

တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေ၊အမိန့်၂၀၊နည်းဥပဒေ၁အရ၊လျှောက်လဲချက်ကြားနာပြီးနောက်တရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ပြောင်းလဲသွားမည်ဆိုလျှင်ပြောင်းလဲသွားသည့်တရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ကနှစ်ဘက်အမှုသည်များ၏လျှောက်လဲချက်ကိုပြန်လည်ကြားနာပြီးမှသာလျှင်စီရင်ချက်ချမှတ်ရပေမည်။

ထပ်မံ၍လျှောက်လဲချက်မကြားနာပဲချမှတ်သည့်စီရင်ချက်မှာဥပဒေအရမတည်နိုင်ပေ။”