Judgment Vijender Jain, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned writ petition and civil revision as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. 2. Shri S.S. Bhardwaj, Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh got embroiled in a controversy in the year 2003 and was placed under suspension. He is presently facing prosecution. On the basis of some information, more than 125 files were recovered from the staff attached to him in which judgments/orders/zimni orders were dictated/typed but were not signed by the Judicial Officer. A list of such cases was forwarded to this Court by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Taking cognizance of the same, the then Chief Justice ordered listing of the matter on judicial side and C.W.P. No. 14522 of 2005 is the outcome thereof. 3. The civil suit of the petitioner in C.R. No. 5853 of 2004 was being adjudicated upon by Shri S.S. Bhardwaj, who, during its trial, passed an order dated 28.4.2003, but could not sign the same before his suspension. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court of Shri S.K. Singla, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, who passed an order in the suit on 12.11.2003, which is as follows : "Heard. File perused. The order on the application u/section 8 of the Arbitration Act was passed on 28.4.03. Both the detailed and interim order are typed but these have not been signed by Shri S.S. Bhardwaj, then CJ(JD), Ch. Perusal of order 20 rule 2 provides that judgment which has been written by predecessor but not pronounced is to be pronounced by the successor. However, as per order dt. 28.4.03, the order was already pronounced but have not been signed. The reference has already been made to ld. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Chd. And many cases have been received by transfer due to suspension of Sh. S.S. Bhardwaj. Once the reference has been made, the order dt. 28.4.03, cannot be pronounced nor further proceedings can be taken until the order is received from ld. Distt. & Sessions Judge. Therefore, the application of plaintiff for proceeding with the case is hereby declined. And many cases have been received by transfer due to suspension of Sh. S.S. Bhardwaj. Once the reference has been made, the order dt. 28.4.03, cannot be pronounced nor further proceedings can be taken until the order is received from ld. Distt. & Sessions Judge. Therefore, the application of plaintiff for proceeding with the case is hereby declined. File be put up on 29.1.03, date already fixed." The petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid order be set aside and the order which had been pronounced by Shri Bhardwaj on 28.4.2003 should be made operative as it was announced in open Court and mere non-signing thereof would not make any difference to its being effective. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. Shri A.S. Grewal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who was requested to assist this Bench as Amicus Curiae, the necessity of which arose because of the peculiar circumstances in which the said Judicial Officer had not signed a number of orders, the files of which were even traced to his residence, contended that a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 12912 of 2003 Court on its own motion v. Shri G.S. Wadhwa and another, decided on 15.10.2004, held as under : "By mere pronouncement of a "judgment", though it never existed either factually or in the eyes of law, Mr. Wadhwa might have given rise to some legitimate expectations to one or the other litigant party, we however, cannot overlook the fact that the party who had suffered this illusory "judgment" too had a right to know the reasons which went against it so as to propound its case before an appellate forum, if so available. The hardship, if at all, thus lies on both sides. To strike a balance and to stop perpetuation of fraud upon the judicial system as a whole and to show our brave and honest face to the litigants who have immense faith in our institution of judiciary. The aforementioned proposition was laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Shri G.S. Wadhwa, a judicial officer in the State of Haryana after this Court had taken suo motu notice of the fact that he had pronounced judgments in many cases at the place where he was posted but either had not dictated or signed the same. 6. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R. No. 5853 of 2004, to support the prayer made by the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others, AIR 1988 SC 371, wherein it was held as under : "Rule 3 of Order 20, Civil P.C. permits alteration or additions to a judgment so long as it is not signed. It is only after the judgment is both pronounced and signed that alterations or additions are not permissible except under the provisions of Section 152 or Section 114 of the Civil P.C. or, in very exceptional cases, under Section 151 of the Civil P.C. But, while the Court has undoubted power to alter or modify a judgment, delivered but not signed, such power should be exercised judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons. When a judgment is pronounced in open Court, parties act on the basis that it is the judgment of the Court and that the signing is a formality to follow. Ordinarily judgment is not delivered till the hearing is complete by listening to submissions of counsel and perusal of records and a definite view is reached by the Court in regard to the conclusion. Once that stage is reached and the Court pronounces the judgment, the same should not be reopened unless there be some exceptional circumstances or a review is asked for and is granted. When the judgment is pronounced, parties present in the Court know the conclusion in the matter and often on the basis of such pronouncement, they proceed to conduct their affairs. If what is pronounced in Court is not acted upon, certainly litigants would be prejudiced. Confidence of the litigants in the judicial process would be shaken. A judgment pronounced in open Court should be acted upon unless there be some exceptional feature and if there be any such, the same should appear from the record of the case." 7. We are constrained to observe that we are not dealing with an ordinary situation in these cases. The Judicial Officer Shri S.S. Bhardwaj has not only played a fraud upon the institution, but has tended to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary as harbinger of justice. We are constrained to observe that we are not dealing with an ordinary situation in these cases. The Judicial Officer Shri S.S. Bhardwaj has not only played a fraud upon the institution, but has tended to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary as harbinger of justice. Therefore, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the orders which were pronounced and supplemented by subsequent judgments, which remained unsigned, were merely a mirage for the parties in view of the conduct and antecedents of the Judicial Officer. It would, thus, be in the fairness of things that the parties whose cases were either decided or handled at one stage or the other by Shri Bhardwaj submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court of competent jurisdiction which is now seized of the same and get decided their rights afresh. 8. Consequently, the writ petition and the civil revision are disposed of with a direction that the Judicial Officers in whose Courts the cases in question have been transferred shall proceed to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.