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, 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," the Court said.
The Bench was hearing an allure documented against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had on December 29, 2020 put aside a judgment of the single-judge on the ground that there was postponement of nine months by the single-judge in conveying the judgment.
The single-judge had closed hearing and saved its decision on December 24, 2019. The judgment was conveyed on September 30, 2020. The Division Bench had put in dependence on Request XX of CPC to put aside the decision of the single-judge.
Request XX expresses that a court, after the case has been heard, will articulate judgment in an open court, either immediately, or as before long as might be practicable.
It adds that where the judgment isn't articulated on the double, every undertaking will be made by the court to articulate the judgment inside thirty days from the date on which the becoming aware of the case was closed at the same time, where it isn't practicable so to do on the ground of the excellent and unprecedented conditions of the case, the court will fix a future day for the profession of the judgment, and such day will not customarily be a day past sixty days from the date on which the knowing about the case was finished up.
The Supreme Court, nonetheless, put dependence on its judgment in Anil Rai to hold that Order XX of the CPC doesn't make a difference to the High Court.
"Truth be told, para 10 at that point goes on to set out a progression of rules which should be forced for the High Court in which, bury alia, it is referenced that exclusively following a half year rest 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," the Court noted.