SAO 2/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hear ing and disposal, at the admission stage itself. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No.18/2002 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, which was disposed of vide jud gment and decree dated 3 December 2005, against which an appeal being Title Appe al No.16/2005 was preferred in the learned appellate Court, which was eventually transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Barpeta. It appears from the order dated 17 July 2009 passed by learned first app ellate Court that since the documents proved by the parties as exhibits have not been signed by the presiding officer of the trial Court, the judgment and decre e passed on 3 December 2005 by the learned trial Court has been set aside and th e suit has been remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision, after re cording evidences of the parties afresh. According to the learned first appellate Court, non-signing of the docum ents by the learned presiding officer has vitiated the judgment and decree passe d, and the same is a nullity. I have heard Mr UC Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr N Haque, learned counsel for the respondents. Section 99 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that no decree shall be r eversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on ac count of any misjoinder or non-joinder or parties or causes of action or any err or, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the mer its of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. It, however, provides that not hing in that Section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. Non-signing of the exhibits by learned presiding officer is a mere irreg ularity, for which the parties to the proceedings should not suffer. The learned trial Court, at the most, could have sent the records to the learned presiding officer, who recorded the deposition of witnesses, for his signatures on the exh ibits. Marking of such documents as exhibits is not in dispute. For the said rea son, the learned first appellate Court cannot set aside the decree passed as has been done in the instant case. That being the position, the order dated 17 July 2009 passed by the lear ned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Barpeta in Title Appeal No.16/2005 is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the learned Court below for deciding the same afresh, after hearing all the parties. The said Court, however, may get the signatures o f the learned presiding officer, as noticed above, to remove the irregularities. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 15 Decembe r 2010. The appeal is allowed, to the extent above. No costs.