ORDER.-This appeal raises, in a piquant fashion, the language issue in the subordinate civil Courts of this State. The learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, while disposing of a suit, took a fancy to deliver his judgment in Tamil. The defendants, against whom judgment was so rendered, appealed to the Sub-Court. Their plea in the appeal was that the judgment so rendered, was a nullity, because it was in Tamil. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with this contentions, set aside the Tamil judgment, and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit afresh, meaning thereby that the decision in the suit should be rendered in English. 2. The present appeal before this Court is by the plaintiffs. They are apparently outraged by the fact that in this Tamil country of ours, a judgment of a subordinate Court should have been declared null and void for the reason, of all reasons, that it was written in Tamil. 3. The point at issue, however, has to be decided, not on philological considerations, but rather, on judicial consideration. The English language has been the Court language in the subordinate Courts of the State for many years. It was the language of these Courts on 1st January, 1908 when the Code of Civil Procedure came into being. The Code made express provision in section 137 (1) to the effect that whatever was the prevailing Court language in subordinate Courts at the time shall continue to be so, until the State Government otherwise directed. The State Government’s power to direct otherwise was elaborated in section 137 (2). By this provision, the State Government was empowered to lay down what shall be the language of the subordinate Courts and in what character applications to, and proceedings in, such Courts shall be written. For long, however, the State Government preferred not to exercise these powers, with the result that English continued to be the Court language in all our subordinate Courts. When the Constitution was framed in 1950, provision was made in Article 345 to enable State Legislatures to pass legislation adopting either Hindi or any one or more of the local languages as their respective official language. But, the same Article, in the proviso, declared that until such legislation was passed English shall continue to be used in the States for official purposes, in the same-way as before. But, the same Article, in the proviso, declared that until such legislation was passed English shall continue to be used in the States for official purposes, in the same-way as before. In exercise of this constitutional power, the State Legislature passed the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956, formally adopting Tamil as the official language of the State, but continuing the use of English for all official purposes, until the State Government should direct by notification that Tamil shall be used for such official purposes as may be specified. Vide sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act. 4. The position thus was that even under the State Official Language Act, 1956, it required the Government’s executive decision for Tamil to be actually introduced in any of the departments of State, for transacting official business. So far as the language of subordinate Courts was concerned, the Government’s decision on Tamilisation took a long time coming. In 1969, more than a decade after the State Legislature proclaimed Tamil as the State Official language, the State Government moved in this regard, by passing G.O.Ms. No. 5630 of 1969, Public (Tamil Development-I), dated 13th November, 1969. For making this order, the State Government traced its enabling power to section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956, as well as section 137 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under this notification, Tamil language was officially adopted as the Court language in the subordinate Courts. This change was to be effected in all the subordinate Courts from Pongal day, 14th January, 1970. But even under this order, the introduction of Tamil by no means supplanted English altogether. Under the express terms of the notification, Tamil was to be used by the subordinate Courts only for recording evidence. 5. Thus the position, even after Pongal day 1970, was that English was to continue to rule the proceedings in all the subordinate Courts in all respects, including the writing of judgments, orders and decrees, excepting where witnesses spoke in Tamil, in which case even, their testimony had perforce to be recorded by the Courts in that language. It was in this milieu of law and language, that the learned District Munsif broke away from English and wrote his judgment in Tamil. 6. In my view, the learned District Munsif had no authority to lapse into he vernacular while delivering judgment. It was in this milieu of law and language, that the learned District Munsif broke away from English and wrote his judgment in Tamil. 6. In my view, the learned District Munsif had no authority to lapse into he vernacular while delivering judgment. The trends of the 1969 Government order may have tempted him to try his hand at writing a Tamil judgment, but it only involved him in being more executive-minded than the executive. As I see it, he might have saved himself the trouble and his quite misplaced zeal for the mother-tongue, for, in the eye of the law, his judgment in Tamil, is no judgment at all, it is so much waste paper. 7. I fear that there is now no prospect of saving this judgment from the limbs, even after the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956, has passed through further amendments and had been rendered more forthright in its application. The recent amendments have come into force in November, 1976. One of them has actually incorporated G.O.No.Ms.5630 of 1969 as part and parcel of the statute itself. This new provision, section 4-A, declares, as the Government order did before, that Tamil shall be the language of all subordinate Courts for recording evidence. Section 4-B is another provision introduced by this Amending Act. This section, in express terms, makes Tamil the language in which judgments, decrees and orders are to be written by the subordinate Courts in the State, both civil and criminal. But the implementation of this provision from any given date is still left to the decision of the State Government. Acting under this provision, the Government had made an order G.O.Ms.No. 191, Law, dated 13th November, 1976, but that appertained only to the subordinate criminal Courts. Till today no notification has been issued by the State Government making Tamil the medium of expression in judgment, decrees and orders in our subordinate civil Courts. This means that even now they must not be expressing themselves in any language other than English. For all we know, this situation may not last long. But, for the desired change to occur, it is the State Government who should be the prime mover. We, Judges, cannot usurp the exclusives initiative either anticipatorily or even experimentally. This means that even now they must not be expressing themselves in any language other than English. For all we know, this situation may not last long. But, for the desired change to occur, it is the State Government who should be the prime mover. We, Judges, cannot usurp the exclusives initiative either anticipatorily or even experimentally. Hence, until the day the State Government acts, I am afraid the subordinate civil judiciary in Tamil Nadu will have to go on composing their judgments in language which is, recognizably, English. 8. In these circumstances I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in setting aside the Tamil judgment in this case as a nullity and in directing the trial Court to give the suit a fresh disposal. I, however, make it clear that there is no need for the trial Court to have a de novo trial. It is enough that it goes into the evidence which is already on record and delivers its judgment in the language of the Court, namely English. 9. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above direction. No costs.