Conflict between Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 2(2)

Curiously, this provision under Order 20 Rule 5 seemingly is in conflict with Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2.

Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. envisages that judgment shall be pronounced giving finding on all the issues whether the case is disposed of on a preliminary issue or otherwise.

Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2 contemplates that where there are separate issues of law and issues of fact in a suit, the Court may try only an issue of law if the issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or if the issue relates to the bar to a suit created by a statute.

Such a hearing on an issue of law can be taken up by the Court only if the Court is of the opinion that the entire suit or any part of the claim may be disposed of by answering a single issue of law.

Whereas, Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 2(1) contemplate that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues, Order 14 Rule 2(2) is only an exception to the general provision. This is indeed an exception but not the negation of Order 20 Rule 5 C.P.C.

It has already been pointed out that Section 2(2) C.P.C. defines a decree as the formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit Order 20 Rule 6 points out that a decree shall be drafted in terms of the judgment.

The A.P. Civil Rules of Practice provide that a decree shall be drafted by the seventh day of the pronouncement of the judgment since time to file costs memo by the parties expires on the fifth day after judgment. It is therefore clear that a decree is not prepared soon after the pronouncement of the judgment. It is prepared more than five days after the pronouncement of the judgment.

Curiously, Order 20 Rule 6 ordains that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment even though it is prepared sometime after the pronouncement of the judgment.

A situation may arise where the judge who prepares and pronounces the judgment is not holding the Court by the time the decree is prepared, owing to his transfer or other reasons.

In such a case, the judge in charge of the Court is entitled to sign the decree, however, on behalf of the judge who pronounced the judgment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued circulars to the effect that a succeeding judge to a judgment is entitled to sign the decree and the decree need not be transmitted to the judge who pronounced the judgment for his signature.

At any rate even without these circulars, a judge holding a court can sign the decrees in respect of judgments pronounced by his predecessor.