Poor English in H.C Judgment:Apex Court
The Apex Court is taken by surprise while sitting over a judgment passed by Justice Sureshwar Thakur of Himachal Pradesh High Court on account of poor English being used in the said judgement.The Bench comprising of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta in the apex court intended to suggest that the impugned judgement lacks proper language construction and more particularly not comprehensive.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 52 of 2016 Decided on : 9.12.2016
Tek Chand and another …..Petitioners.
Karam Singh & others. ……Respondents.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)
The instant petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded by the learned executing Court upon a petition constituted therebefore under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC by the DHs/petitioners herein (for short “the plaintiffs) whereby the aforesaid petition stood dismissed by it. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2017 16:07:23 :::HCHP High Court of H.P. …2… 2. The learned trial Court pronounced qua the petitioners/plaintiffs (for short “the plaintiffs) an apposite decree of permanent prohibitory injunction whereupon the defendants stood restrained from causing any obstruction upon a path existing on the suit land depicted in Tatima Ex.PW-1/A. 3. During the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court the defendants purportedly caused obstruction upon the path existing on the aforesaid suit land whereupon the plaintiffs made an oral request before the learned trial Court qua a relief of mandatory injunction standing pronounced by it for directing the defendants to remove the obstruction raised by them upon the path existing upon the suit land. The learned trial Court declined the aforesaid relief to the plaintiffs. The declining of the aforesaid relief to the plaintiffs by the learned trial Court is not ridden with any inherent procedural fallacy given the plaintiffs without begetting apposite amendments in the plaint by instituting therebefore an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC theirs merely making therebefore an oral submission for the according of the apposite relief to them, oral relief whereof naturally warranted its standing ::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2017 16:07:23 :::HCHP High Court of H.P. …3… declined as tenably declined by the learned trial Court. Also evidence, if any, in consonance therewith for hence a decree of mandatory injunction standing pronounced upon the defendants was wholly discardable it naturally being beyond pleadings. 4. The defendants’ omitted to assail the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced vis-à-vis the plaintiffs by theirs carrying an appeal therefrom before the learned first Appellate Court. Consequently the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced by the learned trial Court attained finality besides conclusivity. 5. Be that as it may despite the defendants’ not assailing the decree of the learned trial Court whereby they stood injuncted against causing any obstruction upon the path borne on tatima Ex.PW-1/A reflected in the operative portion of the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs’ though carried an appeal therefrom before the learned first Appellate Court whereby they assailed the rendition recorded by the learned trial Court whereby relief of mandatory injunction stood refused vis-à- vis them yet therebefore also they orally submitted qua the defendants’ during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court causing obstruction upon the path comprised in the aforesaid Khasra Number whereupon they had staked a claim qua an an easementary right of its user for facilitating theirs accessing their house besides made an oral prayer therebefore qua an apposite decree of mandatory injunction standing pronounced against the defendants. The aforesaid oral prayer made by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court besides before the learned appellate Court stood aptly declined to them for theirs before either of the Courts omitting to beget an apposite amendment in the plaint by moving an appropriate application constituted under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Also the plaintiffs did not concert to assail the relevant findings qua the facet aforesaid embodied in paragraph 22 of the judgment of the First appellate Court, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter by theirs preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. In sequel thereto finality besides conclusivity stands imputed to the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court qua the relevant factum probandum of the defendants’ not warranting vis-à-vis them any rendition of any decree of mandatory injunction arising from theirs during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court or during the pendency of the suit before the learned First Appellate Court raising obstructions on the path by stacking material thereupon whereby the user of path by the plaintiffs depicted in the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction besides embodied in tatima Ex.PW-1/A stood fully forestalled besides thwarted. “22. Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence led by the plaintiffs, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid evidence led by the plaintiff failed to prove on record that during the pendency of the suit the defendants obstructed the said path with cut stones and wood etc. This evidence further reveals that the matter in controversy with the obstruction of the part and granting of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs was not within the knowledge of the parties. Since, the matter was not in the knowledge of the parties especially the defendants, as such the defendants was having no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it and in these circumstances in doing justice to one party, the court can not do injustice to another party and the trial court after dealing the matter elaborately and discussing the statements of the parties, rightly did not grant the relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, such, being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiffs have in fact failed to prove on record by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence that the defendants during the pendency of the suit obstructed the use of said party and in the absence of any specific pleadings and specific evidence the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and hence, the judgment and decree under challenge are legal and valid and the same do not require any modification or interference at the hands of this court. As such, this point is decided against the plaintiffs.” 6. Hereat is to be adjudged the compatible worth qua the conclusivity of the findings recorded by the learned First appellate Court qua a decree of mandatory injunction being un-renderable against the defendants vis-à-vis the conclusivity of the apposite verdict rendered by the learned trial Court besides affirmed by the learned First appellate Court arising from the factum of the defendants’ not carrying an appeal thereagainst before the learned first Appellate Court wherefrom an inference stands engendered qua the defendants acquiescing to the findings besides qua the conclusivity of the decree pronounced upon them whereupon they stood restrained from obstructing the path depicted in tatima Ex. PW-1/A. 7. For pronouncing an efficacious decision upon the aforesaid facet imperatively when obviously the bar of res judicata besets the plaintiffs against theirs instituting a fresh suit against the defendants vis-à-vis the aforesaid relief preponderantly when it accrued earlier whereat it stood un-ventilated by the plaintiffs significantly when they omitted to avail the apposite statutory mechanism whereupon they stand forestalled besides interdicted to in a freshly constituted suit canvass a relief for its removal by the defendants comprised in the latters standing mandatorily injuncted to remove it whereupon the act of the defendants comprised in theirs obstructing the path decreed for user by the plaintiffs would hence stand rendered un-redeemed, ought to not be necessarily borne in mind. Given the factum aforesaid qua a statutory bar of res judicata forbidding the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit for redeeming the prohibited act of the defendants comprised in theirs obstructing the path embodied in the apposite tatima also when for reasons aforesaid the defendants acquiesce to the conclusivity of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced upon them it is deemed both just and befitting, significantly also for facilitating the plaintiffs to reap the benefit of a conclusively recorded decree of permanent prohibitory injunction dehors any omission on their part to beget an apposite amendment in the plaint seeking embodying therein a relief of mandatory injunction, to record a finding qua the plaintiffs qua their omissions aforesaid not standing in the way of an efficacious affirmative rendition standing pronounced by the learned Executing Court concerned upon an apposite petition constituted therebefore for execution of the aforesaid decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced against the defendants. In case finality is attached to the findings occurring in paragraph 22 of the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court it would frustrate the working of the binding decree pronounced upon the defendants qua the user by the plaintiffs of a path existing on the suit land. Throughout since the rendition of a conclusively rendered decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced against the defendants upto its efficacious affirmative execution standing ordered by the learned Executing Court comprised in its directing qua appropriate consummatory coercive steps standing taken, its mandate hold full sway besides both the plaintiffs and the defendants are bound to revere its mandate. Even if assumingly no efficacious evidence nor any evidence of cogent worth may stand adduced qua the defendants raising any obstruction upon the suit land yet the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction dehors any obstructive act done by the defendants during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court or during the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court also dehors no scribed relief in consonance therewith standings prayed for by the plaintiffs would not estop this court to permit the executing court to carry the mandate of the conclusively recorded decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced qua the plaintiffs, conspicuously when thereupon the mandate of the conclusively recorded decree pronounced qua the suit land would beget consummation besides would obviate its frustration. For facilitating its consummation, though the learned executing Court stood enjoined to pronounce an appropriate order, contrarily it by relegating the impact of the aforesaid germane factum probandum comprised in the enforceable executable conclusive decree, has inaptly dismissed the execution petition. In view of the above there is merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The impugned order stands quashed and set aside. The Execution Petition be decided afresh within three months by the learned Executing Court. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Records be sent back. (Sureshwar Thakur),