085-NLR-NLR-V-02-FERNANDO-v.-THE-SYNDICATE-BOAT-COMPANY,-LIMITED.pdf
( 206 )
1806.
November <5.
FERNANDO v. THE SYNDICATE BOAT COMPANY,
<LIMITED.
D. C., Colombo, 6,958.
Judgment in a civil suit—Delivery of judgment by District Judge on hisre-appointment after his tenure of office during which he had heardevidence had terminated—The Courts Ordinance, 1889i s. 89—Decree—By whom it may be drawn up and signed.
Where an Acting District Judge heard the evidence in a case, butbefore delivering judgment his appointment terminated, end he wassubsequently appointed-Additional District Judge for one day, andhe then delivered his judgment in the case, held, that the case wascovered by section 89 of the Courts Ordinance, 1889, and the pro-ceedings were in order.
The decree in a case is merely the formal expression of the resultsarrived at by the judgment, and it is not necessary that it should bedrawn up and signed by the Judge who pronounced the judgment.That may be done'by any Judge of the Court.
r | ’'HE facts of the case appear in the judgment of Bonder, C.J.
Van Langenberg, for appellant.
Domkorst, Sampayo, and Chitly, for respondent.
6th November, 1896. Bonser, C.J.
The first objection taken in this case was that there was no decreeat all to appeal from. It appears that the action was heard byMr. Grenier when he was acting as District Judge of Colombo.After a time he ceased to act as District Judge, and he had not thendelivered the judgment in this action. He was appointed AdditionalDistrict Judge for one day, via., the 22nd of July, apparently for theexpress purpose of giving judgment in this case. It was arguedhe had become functus officio, and had not power to deliver thisjudgment. In my opinion the case is covered by section 89 of Ordi-nance No. 1 of 1889, which provides that in case of the removalfrom office of any Judge before whom any action is pending, suchaction may be continued before the successor of such Judge, whoshall have power to act on the evidence already recorded by suchfirst-named Judge, or to re-summon the witnesses and commenceafresh. It seems to me that Mr. Grenier when appointed AdditionalDistrict Judge on the 22nd of July was his own successor. It wasopen to the defendants to apply to have the evidence reheard ; butthey did not do so.
Another objection was that the decree was not drawn uj> andsigned by him at a subsequence date. That is a technical defect.
( 207 )
The decree is merely the formal expression of the results arrived atby the judgment, and it could be' drawn up by any Judge of theCourt.
It is not necessary that it should be signed by the Judge whopronounced the judgment. This formal defect can be met by thecase being sent back to the District Court for the purpose of thedecree being signed by the District Judge.
Counsel then attacked the decree on the merits, but after listeningto Mr. Van Langenberg’s arguments I am of opinion that the judg-ment is correct, save as to one particular. The defendants paidsome money into Court. The plaintiff was not satisfied with that,but still went on with the action. The decree does not take that'sum into account.
The decree should be amended by deducting the amount alreadypaid into Court.
Withers, J.—
I am quite of the same opinion, both on the points of law and onthe merits.
isos;
November 6.Bonseb, C. J.