TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty and she is entitled to the relief sought for. The same was contested. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 1-4-2017 decreed the suit, declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and further ordered that the registered agreement dated 3-8-1992 is barred by limitation and not binding on the plaintiff and further decreed that the defendant-Society or anybody on their behalf permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of first respondent-Nagarathnamma has reached finality. 2. After the decree passed by the Trial Court, the original plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for a direction to the Amruthhalli Police Station, Bengaluru North and Sub-Registrar/Tahsildar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North Taluk for protection of the suit schedule property, contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff-Nagarathnamma was decreed by the Trial Court on 1-4-2017, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hhalli Police) to provide police protection to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru to issue katha in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed contending that, in view of the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, the jurisdictional police and the jurisdictional BBMP Joint Commissioner are taking action against the petitioners, who are the owners of the properties in question as stated in the writ petition. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed for the reliefs sought for. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. When the matter was posted for admission on 13-11-2017, Sri K. Suman, learned Counsel for petitioners contended that after the decree was passed on 1-4-2017 in respect of the agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos. 9/4 and 9/3 situated at Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 2 acres 11 guntas in favour of the plaintiff, the impugned orders came to be passed on 13-4-2017 and 17-7-2017 directing the Amruthhalli Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and to issue katha in respect of the agricultural lands, that too after disposal of the suit between the parties and this Court also made it clear that the petitioners are claiming their rights in respect of Site Nos. 34, 35 and 37 and it is always open for the petitioners to approach the Competent Court or appropriate Court to protect their rights, if any in accordance with law. 12. In response to the order passed by this Court dated 13-11-2017, the learned Judge, who passed the impugned orders after the decree, by his explanation dated 23-11-2017, sought to justify the impugned orders and ultimately has stated that if there is any lapses, while considering the IA's, the same may be pardoned. The explanation offered by the learned Judge, who passed the impugned orders relying upon the judgments which pertain to pending matters, is not proper and this Court is not satisfied with the explanation. Therefore, the learned Judge who passed the impugned order is directed not to repeat such mistakes and a word of caution is issued to him to be more careful in future. 13. The suit filed by the first respondent-Nagarathnamma came to be decreed on 1-4-2017. The said decree has rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, an authority who has performed the act authorised so that the authority is exhausted. The expression 'functus officio' means, having fulfilled the function, having discharged the duty, having discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose and therefore, of no further force or authority." 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the definition of functus officio in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) : 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) : 2008 AIR SCW 7153 : (2008) 14 SCC 171, at para 24 held as under: "24. The learned Counsel for the Revenue contended that the normal principle of law is that once a judgment is pronounced or an order is made, a Court, Tribunal or Adjudicating Authority becomes functus officio (ceases to have control over the matter). Such judgment or order is "final" and cannot be altered, changed, varied or modified. It was also submitted that the Income Tax Tribunal is a Tribunal constituted under the Act. It is not a "Court" having plenary powers, but a statutory Tribunal functioning under the Act of 1961. It, therefore, cannot act outside or de hors the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a judgment is reserved, mere dictation does not amount to pronouncement, but where the judgment is dictated in open Court, that itself amounts to pronouncement. But even after such pronouncement by open Court dictation, the Judge can make corrections before signing and dating the judgment. Therefore, a Judge becomes functus officio when he pronounces, signs and dates the judgment (subject to Section 152 and power of review). The position is different with reference to quasi-judicial authorities. While some quasi-judicial Tribunals fix a day for pronouncement and pronounce their orders on the day fixed, many quasi-judicial authorities do not pronounce their orders. Some publish or notify their orders. Some prepare and sign the orders and communicate the same to the party concerned. A quasi-judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated (put in the course of transmission) to the party concerned. When an order is made in an office noting in a file but is not pronounced, published or communicated, nothing prevents the Authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons. But once the order is pronounced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a to issue katha in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the agricultural lands, for which the BBMP has no power. If somebody violates the decree, it is for the decree-holder to implement the decree by initiating appropriate proceedings against the person who violates the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder. Once the decree reached finality, the learned Judge who passed the judgment and decree becomes/functus officio and absolutely the Trial Judge, who passed the decree has no power to issue such directions. In a judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, utmost the Trial Judge can correct any arithmetical/clerical errors as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Beyond that, he cannot issue any directions, that too in respect of agricultural lands directing the Joint Commissioner, BBMP to issue katha. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 20. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder as well as the judgment-debtor sought to justify the impugned orders contending that the petitioners have no locus standi to file writ petitions, according to the petitioners they are the owners of Site No....