9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of Chapter VII rules regarding changing judgments before signing and sealing.
In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the issue at hand was the interpretation of Chapter VII rules 1 to 4 concerning the ability to completely change a judgment after it has been orally dictated in open court but before it is signed and sealed. The court referred to a previous case, Faulad v. State, where a Division Bench held that a judgment is not finalized until signed and sealed, allowing for changes before that point. Another Division Bench doubted this view, leading to a Full Bench being constituted to resolve the matter. The Supreme Court's decision in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh was cited, emphasizing the distinction between judgments pronounced at once, on a future date, oral judgments, and written judgments. The Supreme Court highlighted the judges' right to change their minds until the judgment is formally delivered, whether signed or not. The judgment crystallizes only upon formal delivery in court. The Supreme Court also differentiated between altering judgments before and after signing, with broader review possibilities before signing and limited grounds for review after signing. The Allahabad High Court concluded that a judgment can be completely changed before signing and sealing, provided all parties are given notice and heard before the change is made. The court's interpretation aligned with the Supreme Court's guidance, affirming the ability to alter judgments before finalization through signing and sealing. This judgment clarifies the process of changing judgments before they are signed and sealed, emphasizing the importance of formal delivery in court to finalize a judgment. The court's analysis of the Supreme Court's stance on review possibilities before and after signing sheds light on the distinction between alterable and finalized judgments. By affirming the power to completely change a judgment before signing and sealing, subject to notice and hearing of all concerned parties, the court provides a clear interpretation of the rules governing judgment alterations. The decision ensures transparency and fairness in the judicial process by allowing for modifications to judgments before they are officially concluded, balancing the need for flexibility with the requirement for procedural safeguards.
|
