SAO 1/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. UC Rabha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 17.7.09 passed in T.A. No. 17/05 by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC), Barpeta whereby and wh ereunder the judgment and decree dated 3.12.05 passed in T.S. No. 37/02 was s et aside and remanded the matter back. The ground for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree was that the documents proved by the parties as exhibits ha ve not been signed by the learned Presiding Officer of the trial court. Mr. Rabha, learned counsel pressed into service a decision rendered by this cour t in SAO No. 2/10 dated 15.11.10 in support of his contention. Mr. N. Hoque, lea rned counsel for the respondent, however, does not dispute the proposition of la w laid down in the aforesaid decision. The decree which is passed is not liable to be set aside merely for not signing the documents marked as Exhibits and that would be irregularity. Under Section 99 of the CPC no decree shall be reversed or set aside on that count. It would be incumbent on the learned appellant court to take necessary arrangement for ma rking the exhibits and get it signed by the Presiding Officer of the court who admitted the documents. In that view of the matter the order dated 17.7.09 is s et aside and quashed and the matter is remanded bck to the court of learned add l. District Judge (FTC), Barpeta directing him to decide the T.A. No. 17/05 afr esh in accordance with the provision of law removing the irregularities as indic ated above by causing signature in the exhibits. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned appellate court on 1. 2.11 to receive further instruction. With the above order, this appeal stands finally disposed of. The learned appell ate court shall dispose of the appeal on merit as expeditiously as possible.