RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                Rajasthan Financial Corporation

                Vs.

                Pukhraj Jain

                Civil Revn. Petn. No. 773 of 2000
                           (V.S. Kokje, J.)

                24.10.2000

                ORDER

V.S. Kokje, J.

1. Rajasthan Financial Corporation had filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional
District Judge, Beawar, District Ajmer. After trial of the suit was complete and the
case was reserved for judgment, an application under Order 13, Rule 2, Civil
Procedure Code was moved by the plaintiff. This application was rejected by the trial
Court holding that after the arguments were heard and case was closed for judgment,
the Court was not compelled to accept any application from the parties. Aggrieved by
that order, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has filed this revision petition.

2. The only point to be decided in the case is whether a party could move an
application after the final arguments in the case were heard and the case was reserved
for judgment.

3. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar,1 in para 19, the Supreme Court has observed as
under (at Page 1004) :

       "In the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates
       only two stages in the trial of the suit : (1) where the hearing is adjourned or (2)
       where the hearing is completed. Where the hearing is completed the parties
       have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the
       convenience of the Court that Order 20, Rule 1 permits judgment to be
       delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed. ..... "There is thus no
       hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing the
       judgment so as to make it necessary for the Court to afford to the party the
       remedy of getting orders passed on the lines of Order 9, Rule 7."

4. In view of this clear pronouncement, which is binding on this Court, no further
discussion is in fact necessary but as my attention has been drawn to several decisions
some of which try to distinguish the aforesaid decision in Arjun Singh's case (supra). I
consider it my duty to refer to and discuss the citations cited at the Bar.

5. A single Bench decision of this Court in Kishan Singh v. Birbal Ram, reported in 2
has been cited. This ruling simply does not apply to the facts of the present case as in
that case the application appears to have been made at the stage of arguments and not
after the case was closed for judgment, though the Court has observed that the counsel
for the defendant had argued that the suit was fixed for final disposal. The point as to
whether the application could be made after the closure of the case for judgment or
not, had not been raised in that case and what the Court has decided, relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court reported in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva
Reddy, 3 is that if the document is necessary for disposal of the suit, it should be
accepted even at the stage of arguments. The Supreme Court case relied upon in the
aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable on facts as the documents in that case
were sought to be produced at the stage of arguments and not after the case was closed
for judgment.

6. Another decision of the Supreme Court in Altaf Khan v. Mohd. Amin Khan,4 was
also cited. This also is not a case in which the documents were sought to be produced
between the closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of judgment. The
documents were sought to be produced at the belated stage in this case. This case is,
therefore, clearly distinguishable.

7. A single Bench decision of this Court in RSEB v. Lakhraj Oil 5 was also cited. This
is also a case in which the documents were sought to be produced before the
arguments were finally heard and the case was closed for judgment. This case would
also therefore be of no use for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition.

8. The next case relied upon was a single Bench decision of M. P. High Court in Badri
Prasad v. S. Kripal Singh 6 In this case, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil
Procedure Code was filed after the case was posted for delivery of judgment. The
learned single Judge made a distinction between an application under Order 9, Rule 7,
Civil Procedure Code and an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure
Code and held that Arjun Singh's case (supra) would apply to the applications under
Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code only and would have no application to
application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. Actually, the learned single
Judge has failed to notice the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the point
contained in the words reproduced at the beginning of this Order. I respectfully
disagree with the view taken by the learned single Judge of the M. P. High Court as
the question is not as to under which provision the application is made but the
question is as to whether after the arguments are heard and the case is closed for
judgment, any application under any provision could be moved till the judgment is
pronounced. Supreme Court has clearly held that, there is no hiatus between the two
stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment. If there is no stage
in between two and it is only for the convenience of the Court that pronouncement of
the judgment may be deferred, it is clear that no application could be moved after the
arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment. Moreover, the distinction
sought to be made on the basis of absence of the word 'stage' in Order 9, Rule 7, Civil
Procedure Code is also not real. Since the Supreme Court has categorically decided
that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and
pronouncement of judgment it cannot be said that there can be any stage in between
the closure of the case for judgment and the pronouncement of the judgment itself.

9. Learned single Judge of this Court in Sanjay Saxena v. Smt. Rohini Kutty,7 has held
that though an application under Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code could not be
entertained after the arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment,
application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code could be entertained. This
decision does not refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case
(supra). It runs directly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's
case (supra). For that reason, it is not a good law.

10. In Smt. Karti v. Rattia, 8 a learned single Judge of in Punjab and Haryana High
Court has distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh
(supra). In the facts of that case, an application under Order 13, Rule 2, Civil
Procedure Code moved after the arguments were heard and before the judgment was
pronounced was accepted by the trial Court and the revision petition was filed against
the order of such acceptance. The case is clearly distinguishable because by accepting
the application the Court itself had reversed the process before pronouncement of
judgment. Arjun Singh's case did not postulate such a situation. The trial Court has
jurisdiction not to pronounce the judgment on a particular date and fix it again for
rehearing or for any other purpose if it finds itself unable to pronounce the judgment
for want of documents or any other reason. The decision in Arjun Singh's case does
not of course mean that the trial Court is powerless after it closed the case for
judgment and has to pronounce the judgment in all circumstances. But the decision of
the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) clearly lays down that for the parties,
there is no hiatus between closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of the
judgment and therefore, the parties cannot move any application as there is no stage in
between closure of the case for pronouncement of the judgment and actual
pronouncement of the judgment.

11. A single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Celestina Rosario v. Mrs.
Hariquinha F.D. Rosario9 was also cited. This case takes a view contrary to Arjun
Singh's case (supra) without even referring to that decision.
12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I see no reason as to why Arjun Singh's
case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. I find no force
in this revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.

Petition dismissed.

Cases Referred.

1. AIR 1964 SC 993
2. 1995 (2) DNJ 195
3. 1994 (4) SCC 659
4. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 725
5. (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 23/96 decided on 3-10-1996
6. AIR 1981 Mad Pra 228
7. 1999 DNJ (Raj) 322
8. AIR 1981 Pun and Har185
9. (1999 (2) CCC 599: (1997 AIHC 150) (Bom)