Knox and Karamat Husain, JJ.:— The officer who held the post of the Subordinate Judge of Jhansi heard an appeal and had inscribed in the order sheet that judgement would be delivered on a certain date. Further, he wrote out what took the form of a judgement in the case and place it upon the record. Before the appointed day arrived he ceased to be the Subordinate Judge of Jhansi. His successor in office did not pronounce the judgement written by his predecessor, but took a totally different view of the case from his predecessor and delivered a judgement contrary to that which, it would appear, his predecessor had intended to deliver. It is contended before us that the judgement which was written but not pronounced by the predecessor should have been pronounced by the Judge who succeeded him in office. Authority for this contention is based upon the words used in order XX, rule 2, and it is contended that the words “it may pronounce” are mandatory and left the successor no option but to pronounce the judgement which he found upon the record. No authority has been given to us for this view. On the other hand, we are indebted to the other side who referred us to Re Baker; Nicholas v. Baker, adopted by the Calcutta High Court in In the Goods of Prem Chand. We agree with the Calcutta High Court as to the meaning to be put upon the word “may,” and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Application dismissed.