1. A. R. SHEIKH, J.----The admitted facts are that Abdur Rahim :appellant and Taj Muhammad respondent were applicants for transfer of Property No. P. 64, Mohalla Harcharanpura No: 2, Lyailpur.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order ,dated the 2nd of December 1959, treated the property as one unit and excluded the respondent on the ground that the appellant ,was a senior allottee. Thereafter, the case was reviewed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after obtaining approval of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the property was transferred to both the parties jointly in proportion to the shares in their possession. The appellant filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful. He preferred a revision petition against the appellate order, which revision petition was heard by Mr. Nabi Ahmed, Settlement Commissioner, and was allowed by his order dated the 16th of September 1961, giving the entire house to the appellant. After a period of almost one year and a month, the respondent came to this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution Act and the contention raised was that because Mr. Nabi Ahmed, Settlement Commissioner, had died before signing the impugned order, there was no proper judgment in the case and the order signed by his successor-in-office was defective and inoperative and the division petition should be considered to be still undisposed of and pending before the Settlement Commissioner and a writ --should be issued for the purpose. The learned Judge in, Chambers has after recapitulating the facts, issued a writ treating the unsigned order purported to have been made by' Mr. Nabi Ahmed, Settlement Commissioner, as of no legal consequence, with the result that he has remanded the case to-- the Settlement Commissioner for decision afresh in accordance --with Law.
2. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the main question argued, on behalf of the appellant is that in view of the pronouncement of the order by Mr. Nabi Ahmed, Settlement Commissioner, on the 16th of September 1961, accepting the revision petition, which pronouncement is evidenced by the short order recorded in Urdu saying "The file has been put up for judgment today. As. Per English order the revision petition has been accepted. Order pronounced. File may be consigned to the, record room after completion."
3. The non-signing of the English order in no manner makes the decision of the revision petition defective or non-existent. He has argued that there is no particular provision in the Displaced.
4. Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) with regard to the procedure for pronouncing judgments and because the Settlement authorities are quasi judicial tribunals, only the principles of the provisions of the Code of Civil. Procedure on the subject may be drawn at and the unsigned order in English read with the signed short Urdu order should be held to be a complete and proper order accepting the revision, petition. In support of his contention he has relied on Makhan Singh and others v. Wadawa Singh and others (AIR 1934 Lah. 763) in, which an order was passed in execution to the effect that the application was time-barred but the order was not signed. A vernacular order was not signed but was written on the same day reciting the fact of the dismissal and initialled by the Judge. It was held that the omission being an accidental one and the order of the executing Court having been repeated by the Judge in his vernacular order, it must be held to be binding. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the English order having not been signed by the presiding officer and no pronouncement having as a matter of fact been made on the 16th of September 1961, no order should be considered to have been ever passed and the revision petition is still pending and has to be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. It is argued that because according to the Urdu order, the order in English had already been passed, the absence of signature on the English order is indication of the fact that even the Urdu order is factually incorrect or at least not helpful in the matter. He has also discussed some factualaspects of the case and the alleged compromise between the-- parties, resulted in the order of review by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. However, since the case hinges on the decision of the question of validity of the unsigned English order in the presence of the signed short order in Urdu, the authenticity of which part of the record is in no manner doubtful, we confine our decision to this legal aspect of the case only.
3. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to writing of judgments and pronouncement thereof by the trial Court are contained in Order XX, rules 1, 2 and 3 and by the Appellate Court in Order XLI, rule 31. Since there is no regular procedure prescribed for writing, pronouncement and delivery of judgments in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili- -tation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), the principles embodied in the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil.
6. Procedure can be borrowed with advantage and it is from that point of view that we will discuss the validity and effectiveness of the unsigned English order of Mr. Nabi Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner in the instant case. The rules on the subject referred to above do not lay down the law that if the requirements are not complied with the judgment or order shall be a nullity. In this view wee are fortified by the weighty observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Firm Gokal Chand v. Firm Nand Ram (AIR 1938 P C 292). Which case arose out of .An appeal decided by the Bench comprising Harrison and Agha Haider, JJ., of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. In that case the appeal was heard by the said two learned Judges and judgment pronounced in open Court by Harrison, J. On the 23rd of February 1933, to which Agha Harder, J. Concurred. Before, however, the judgment could be signed, Harrison, J. Proceeded on leave and the judgment was signed by Agha Haider, J. Only and the Deputy Registrar appended a note to the effect that Harrison, J. Had gone on leave before signing the judgment he delivered. An objection was taken that the judgment not being in accord with Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C was not a valid judgment. Mr. Justice Agha Haider along with another Judge repelled the objection by order dated the 5th of June 1933. When the matter went up to the Privy Council, the same objection was reiterated and was rejected. The relevant extract from page 295 of the report AIR 1938 P C 292 may be reproduced with advantage "The rule does not say that if its requirements are not complied with the judgment shall be a nullity.
7. So startling a result would need clear and precise words. Indeed the rule does not even state any definite time in which it is to be fulfilled. The time is left to be defined by what is reasonable. The rule from its very nature is not intended to affect the rights of parties to a judgment. It is intended to secure certainty, in the ascertain--ment of what the judgment was. It is a rule which Judges are required to comply with for that object. No doubt in practice Judges do so comply, as it is their duty to do. But accidents may happen. A Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it. The Court must have inherent jurisdiction to supply such a defect.
8. The case of a Judge who has gone on leave before signing the judgment may call for more comment, but even so the conveni--ence of the Court and the interest of litigants must prevail.
9. The defect is merely an irregularity. But in truth the difficulty is disposed of by sections 99 and 108, Civil P. C.
10. We following with respect the aforementioned dictum of their Lordships of the Privy Council, hold that a judgment is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and world at large by formal pronouncement or delivery in open Court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. The decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declara--petition of the mind of the Court, as it is at the time of the pro--nouncement. Minor irregularities as to the mode of delivery or manner of pronouncement do not matter as these can be cured. Up to the moment the judgment is delivered, the Judges have the right to change their mind, but once the judgment is delivered, the irregularity of non-signing of the judgment (the reasons for the decision) in no way detracts from the binding character of the, judgment. The instant case is rather on a stronger footing.1 Here we have the clear embodiment of the case by Mr. Nabi Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner, rejecting the revision petition, contained in the Urdu order signed by Mr. Nabi Ahmad and after this pronouncement there was no occasion for Mr. Nabi Ahmad to change his mind or have second thoughts about the decision of the case. It was due to ill-luck of the parties that after having pronounced the decision and dictating the judgment, the said presiding officer breathed his last and the order remained unsigned. In view of the fact that the judgment had been delivered by Mr. Nabi Ahmad, the unsigned order is very much in existence and operative between the parties and is in no manner invalid. We accordingly hold that the revision petition had been finally disposed of by Mr. Nabi Ahmad by his order dated the 16th of September 1961, and recall the writ issued by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed in the terms above. However, the parties are left to be bear their own costs.