The registry had failed to draw up a divorce decree in terms of the Court’s order passed in September, which resulted in the closure of as many as ten cases between the parties.
The Court then asked the registry to furnish a report as to why there was no decree drawn even after five months of the order. When the response came, the Court said,
“The Registrar (Judicial Listing) has submitted a report along with the explanation by various staff members. If all the reports are read together, it shows the sorry state of affairs.”
As per the report, the staff said that it had misplaced the original terms of settlement. Taking a dim view of this, the Bench said,
“We fail to understand how the registry can refuse to draw the decree on the ground that the original settlement terms were not available. When there is an order of the Court to draw a decree in a particular manner, it was the duty of the registry to do so. Another excuse was invented that the court master had not forwarded the original settlement terms. The report shows that even the said excuse was totally incorrect, as the settlement terms were forwarded by the court master which were misplaced due to no fault of the court master of this Court.”
Source: Barandbench
