IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 57679 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) C/W CRP NOS. 11 OF 2019 (IO) , 12 OF 2019 (IO) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 57680 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. NO. 57679/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M R JAYARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 2. SRI M R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 3. SRI M R JANAKIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. SMT M R PRABHAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 5. SMT M R PADMAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. JAGADEESH C K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M R SEETHARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI M R PATTABHIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. SRI M R KODANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. SRI M R ANANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 5. SRI M R RAGHURAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. S R KAMAL CHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4; SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.1478/2006 ON THE MEMO DATED 06.12.2018 FILED BY THE R-1 TO 4 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.1478/2006 AS AGAINST THE R-1 TO 4 FOR ITS ADJUDICATION ON MERITS THEM ALSO AND AWARD THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
IN C.R.P. NO. 11/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M R JAYARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.
2. SRI M R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 3. SRI M R JANAKIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SMT M R PRABHAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 5. SMT M R PADMAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. JAGADEESH C K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M R SEETHARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI M R PATTABHIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SRI M R KODANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SRI M R ANANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. SRI M R RAGHURAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. S R KAMAL CHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4; SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.31 INO.S.NO.1478/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE IA NO.31 FILED UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC TO DISMISS THE ABOVE SUIT ON THE COUNT OF ADMISSION.
IN C.R.P. NO. 12/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M R JAYARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 2. SRI M R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 3. SRI M R JANAKIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SMT M R PRABHAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 5. SMT M R PADMAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. JAGADEESH C K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M R SEETHARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI M R PATTABHIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SRI M R KODANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SRI M R ANANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. SRI M R RAGHURAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. S R KAMAL CHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4; SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.12 IN O.S.NO.507/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE IA NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT.
IN W.P. NO. 57680/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M R JAYARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 2. SRI M R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 3. SRI M R JANAKIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. SMT M R PRABHAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED 5. SMT M R PADMAVATHY, D/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. JAGADEESH C K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M R SEETHARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI M R PATTABHIRAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. SRI M R KODANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. SRI M R ANANDARAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 5. SRI M R RAGHURAM, S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A GOKULA HOUSE, M S RAMAIAH ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. S R KAMAL CHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4; SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.507/2010 ON THE MEMO DATED 06.12.2018 FILED BY THE R-1 TO 4 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.507/2010 AS AGAINST THE R-1 TO 4 FOR ITS ADJUDICATION ON MERITS THEM ALSO AND AWARD THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners in W.P.No.57679/2018 being some of the defendants in a declaration suit in O.S.No.1478/2006 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 18.12.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Devanahalli having favoured the memo dated 06.12.2018 filed by the Defendant Nos.3, 4, 6 & 7 has dismissed the suit qua the said defendants.
2. In C.R.P.No.11/2019 these very petitioners are invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for assailing the order dated 18.12.2018, whereby the same learned Judge having rejected their application in I.A.No.31 filed under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, has refused to grant judgment on the alleged admissions of the respondents.
3. All these matters involving the same parties and same fact matrix emanating from the aforesaid suit were taken up for consideration together for disposal by this common order, with the consent of the Bar.
4. Brief facts of the case:
(a) all the parties in the Writ Petitions and in the Civil Revision Petitions are the children of one late Sri M.S.Ramaiah, who was an acclaimed educationist and a philanthropist of yester years; the respondent Shri.M.R.Raghuram being his son has filed the subject suit against rest of the children inter alia for a decree for declaration that the registered ‘memorandum of confirmation of oral family arrangement cum partition’ dated 18.11.2005 does not bind him and is void; other consequential reliefs too are claimed; the suit is resisted by the petitioners and other defendants by filing the Written Statements;
(b) the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.3, 4, 6, & 7 having allegedly compromised the lis between them had moved a Compromise Petition dated 01.02.2017 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC seeking a decree in terms thereof; the learned trial Judge vide Order dated 11.04.2017 had deferred the consideration of the said Compromise Petition on the objections of the petitioner- defendants thereto and that the challenge to the same by the others in W.P.Nos.17232-17235/2017 (GM-CPC) came to be negatived by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2018;
(c) when this was the position the Defendant Nos.3, 4, 6 & 7 moved a memo dated 06.12.2018 seeking dismissal of the suit against them, a copy whereof is at Annexure-N to the writ petition, on the ground that they have entered into a registered deed of family settlement cum arrangement; the same was objected to by the petitioner-defendants; the learned trial Judge by the impugned order dismissed the suit qua the said defendants; this is put in challenge in the writ petitions;
(d) the petitioner-defendants had filed an application in IA No.31 on 12.12.2018, under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking a judgment on admission of other parties to the suit arguably contained in their pleadings/applications/objections & the documents; the same was opposed by the respondent-plaintiff; the learned trial judge vide impugned order has rejected the said application which is put in challenge in the connected civil revision petitions.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. I have also adverted to the rulings cited at the Bar. I have discussed contentions as to the fact matrix and the legal aspects governing the same, hereunder.
6. IN RE WRIT PETITIONS:
(a) Ordinarily, it is open to the plaintiff as the dominus litis either to withdraw the suit proceedings or otherwise to give up suit claim, partly or fully as rightly contended by the contesting respondents vide M/S HULAS RAI BAIJ NATH Vs. FIRM K.B. BASS & CO, AIR 1968 SC 111; it is also true that when plaintiff applies for withdrawal of the suit coupled with the prayer for grant of leave to sue afresh on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of CPC,1908, defendant can resist the same, and in such an event it is for the court to decide as to whether the leave should be accorded or not vide ANIL KUMAR SINGH vs. VIJAY PAL SINGH, (2018) 12 SCC 584; however, in the present case it was not the plaintiff who had made such a prayer; only a memo and not an application was filed by the contesting respondents herein seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the dispute as between the plaintiff and the said defendants was amicably settled by a registered memorandum of family arrangement. Therefore, the concept of right to withdraw the suit in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1 may not be stricto sensu applicable in this case inasmuch as the dismissal of the suit was at the instance of the contesting defendants and not the plaintiff, that too when the petitioner-defendants had registered their Objection, thereto.
(b) The contention of the contesting defendants that their memo for dismissal of the suit having not been objected to by the respondent-plaintiff should be treated on par with an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 as if it has been filed by the plaintiff, appears to be too farfetched a view and therefore difficult to countenance; what the plaintiff’s counsel in the court below had endorsed on the subject Memo was “I have no instruction to file any objections to this Memo”; the learned trial Judge therefore could not have treated this script as amounting to ‘No Objection’ to the request for the dismissal of the suit, that too, on the ground of amicable settlement pleaded by some of the defendants and objected to by the others i.e., petitioners herein.
(c) Apparently, the propositus Sri M.S.Ramaiah has passed away leaving huge properties worth several crores of rupees and survived by ten children who are parties to the suit proceedings; some of them have allegedly settled the property dispute in part; by the dismissal of the suit qua the contesting defendants herein on the ground of amicable settlement founded on a registered memorandum of family arrangement, what prejudice would be occasioned to the petitioners herein has not been properly considered by the learned trial Judge; he was simple swayed away by the contention of the contesting defendants that the petitioners do not have any locus standi or the justification to oppose the dismissal of the suit on the ground of amicable settlement between the plaintiff and themselves; the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on being twice asked by this Court, declined to assure that petitioners’ interest would not be affected by the said settlement; justice should not only be done but also seem to have been done, is a grand principle which the Court below has not borne in mind; thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the impugned order dismissing the suit qua some of the defendants on the basis of Memo is vulnerable for challenge.
(d) The consideration of the application filed by the plaintiff and the contesting respondents under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC seeking disposal of the suit in terms of the compromise was deferred by the learned trial Judge vide Order dated 11.04.2017 challenge to which in their Writ Petition Nos.17232-17235/2017 (GM-CPC) was negatived by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-M; at para 14 of the suit judgment, it is observed as under:
“14. …In the case on hand, the Court has to examine as to whether the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants No.3,4,6 and 7 would affect the other defendants 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9. The respondents/defendants have filed a memo dated 10.11.2017 producing sketches (9) to show that how the properties under document dated 18.11.2005 have been rearranged and readjusted among the defendants. On going through the same, it is seen that land allotted to defendants No.2, 3,4 and 6 under partition deed dated 01.04.1970 have been allotted to defendant No.3 (petitioner No.1); property allotted to defendants No.2 and 5 under partition deed dated 01.04.1970 have been allotted to defendant No.4 (Petitioner No.2); properties allotted to defendants No.2, 4 and 5 as per partition deed dated 01.04.1970 is allotted to the share of defendant No.6 (Petitioner No.3) and land allotted to defendants No.2 and 6 under partition deed dated 01.04.1970 is allotted to defendant No.7 (Petitioner No.4). The trial Court is justified in deferring the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC by the plaintiff and defendants No.3, 4, 6 and 7 for the reason that if the compromise petition is allowed document dated 18.11.2005, which is under challenge would be valid insofar as defendants 3, 4 6 and 7 are concerned. The plaintiff after entering into compromise with defendants No.3, 4, 6 and 7 intends to continue the suit against the other defendants and suppose, ultimately after trial, if the suit is decreed, the document dated 18.11.2005 becomes invalid insofar as defendants No.1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 are concerned. The document dated 18.11.2005 and dispute involved in the suit is inseparable. As the document dated 18.11.2005 is inseparable, the trial Court has rightly deferred the consideration of compromise for consideration at the stage of disposal of the suit. Further, if the compromise petition is accepted it would prejudice the case of the other defendants against whom the suit would continue leaving out the defendants No.3, 4, 6 and 7. If the suit is ultimately decreed declaring the document dated 18.11.2005 as not binding and is void, the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants No.3, 4, 6 and 7 would become invalid…”.
(e) The above aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned trial judge with due application of mind and advertence; this apart, whether the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition referred to above would operate as res judicata or the like, also needs to be considered, the settled legal position being that, the doctrine of res judicata operates in successive stages of very same proceedings vide Apex Court decision in SATYADHYAN GHOSAL vs. DEORAJIN DEVI, AIR 1960 SC 941; thus the impugned order is infected with the legal & factual lacunae warranting indulgence of Writ Court for setting at naught the prejudice occasioned thereby; matter deserves remand for consideration afresh, by the Court below.
7. IN RE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS:
(a) The impugned order whereby revision petitioners application in I.A.No.31 seeking a judgment on admission is also not sustainable because of the error apparent on its face inasmuch as at para 10 thereof the learned Judge observes as under:
“10. On perusal of the objections of the plaintiff he wants to continue the suit against the defendants No.1, 2, 5, 8 and 9. The plaintiff being Dominus litis has every right to prosecute the sit in accordance with law. Whatever the contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing for the defendants No.1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 in the present application is matter of trial and the same to be adjudicated at the trial. Moreover, I find no such admission by the plaintiff as against the defendants No.1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 with respect of the reliefs sought in the plaint. Under these circumstances, the application filed by the defendants No.1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 are bereft of merits”.
(b) The reason assigned by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the subject application is repugnant to the intent of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of Code which speak of “admissions” as contradistinguished from “consent”; the observations reproduced supra are structured on a wrong legal premise that for granting a “judgment on admissions in the pleadings or otherwise”, the consent of the plaintiff is a sine qua non since he is a dominus litis; there is a marked legal difference between a claim for the grant of a “consent decree” and the claim for the grant of a “judgment on admissions”; the former is treated under Order XXIII Rule 3 whereas the later is considered under Order XII Rule 6; they have other legal consequences too when it comes to scope of their appealability; all this, has not been adverted to by the Court below and thus there is misdirection in law, which the learned trial Judge suffered from; and, (c) the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 as enacted by the 1976 amendment to the Code enable the trial Court to pass a judgment on admission at any stage of the suit without determining other questions between the parties; this is a wide power bestowed by the Parliament on the Courts so that in respect of matters on which the parties are not in divergence, speedy justice can be granted to those who are entitled thereto, leaving the rest for the trial; what the Apex Court observed in the case of KARAM KAPAHI vs. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, (2010) 4 SCC 753 is succinctly summarized by the Editor of this Law Report as under:
“The principles behind Order 12 Rule 6 are to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Under this Rule either party may get rid of so much of the rival claims about “which there is no controversy”. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested to enable the Court to give a judgment not only on the application of a party, but on its own motion. The amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a wider sweep by empowering Judges to use it “ex debito justitiae” The trust of the amendment is that in an appropriate case, a party, on the admission of the other party, can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the Court always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing judgment. If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with Order 22 Rule 6 it becomes clear that the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 is wider inasmuch as the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is limited to admission by “pleading or otherwise in writing” but in Order 12 Rule 6 the expression “or otherwise” is much wider in view of the words used therein namely ‘admission of fact … either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing’. The provision under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is enabling, discretionary and permissive and is neither mandatory nor is it peremptory since the word “may” has been used.
….”
(d) a judgment on admission can be passed when a statement of admission is notified to the Court and the party making such statement after being given an opportunity to explain fails to do it; these admissions can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case or from the answers given to interrogatories too; the provision of Order XII Rule 6(1) specifically employs the expression “admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise” and this shows the wide scope of the provision; the impugned order does not specifically discuss as to the availability/inferability of admissions pleaded by the petitioners at all; their subject application apparently was not considered by the learned trial Judge keeping in view the principles and parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions mentioned supra; thus the petitioners did not have a fair treatment of their claim for grant of judgment on admission; the consideration of petitioners case by the Court below can be termed as perfunctory and non-speaking.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions and the revision petitions having been partly favoured, both the impugned orders are quashed; the matter is remitted back for consideration afresh at the hands of the learned trial Judge within a period of three months, keeping open all the contentions of the parties.
The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/