IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.9326 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.5.2010 Court on its own Motion Vs. State of Punjab CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner/High Court & Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This matter has been placed before us in pursuance of order passed on the administrative side, to decide the question whether cases which were dealt with by Shri Balinder Singh Sra, the then Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar shown as disposed of without passing of any order, should be treated to have been decided or should be treated to be pending. Further question is whether any judicial order is required in that regard. 3. From the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 12.11.2009, it was found that as many as 40 applications for certified copies were lying pending relating to the orders passed by Shri Balinder Singh Sra, former Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar. It was also found that no orders had been written and signed till then. Later on, print outs of the said orders CWP No.9326 of 2010 were claimed to have taken and submitted to the District and Sessions Judge on 27.11.2009. 4. On 9.12.2009, the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge recorded his note, to the effect that by not signing and dictating the judgment at the time of pronouncing the same, the said cases should not be treated to have been disposed of and should be treated to be still pending in view of earlier judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2004 in Court on its own motion v. State of Haryana and others C.W.P. No.12912 of 2003. The original files were summoned and thereafter, the said papers were placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to consider whether the said cases should be treated to be pending. The matter was, thereafter, directed to be put up on judicial side. 5. We have heard Shri D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel representing the High Court and Shri Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. 6. Learned counsel point out that in view of earlier judgment of this Court referred to above holding, that by mere pronouncement of a judgment, which did not exist, the case could not be treated to have been decided, the cases will have to be treated to be pending. The submission deserves to be accepted. 7. Accordingly, we hold that the cases in which no judgments were written and signed at time of pronouncement, list of which is on record, will have to be treated to be pending. 2 CWP No.9326 of 2010 Subsequent writing of judgments and ante-dating the same, will be treated to be a nullity. 8. The matter is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 26, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3