Judge should not sit like a sphinx, must engage with lawyers during hearings: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that a judge is not expected to sit silently like a “sphinx” during trial court proceedings, but must engage with lawyers and put questions to witnesses if the court has lingering doubts about a case [P Palanikumar Vs R Selvi]..A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and R Poornima made the observation while setting aside a trial court's decision to dismiss a money recovery suit on grounds that were not raised by the defendant or put to the plaintiff by the trial judge.The High Court noted that the trial court had failed to use the powers conferred on him to engage with the litigants and counsel before him in this case. "The Judge should not sit like a sphinx. He must engage in a dialogue with the Bar. He must pose questions to the witness to disabuse his mind of lingering suspicions. This is also a facet of the principles of natural justice,” the High Court remarked..The litigant cannot be taken by surprise. Our adjudicatory system contemplates laying all cards on the table.Madras High Court.The Bench further observed that a trial court cannot decide on a disputed point that was never put to the litigant during the hearing. The Court cautioned that the substance of a judgment must not contain anything that was not discussed during the hearing."The litigant cannot be taken by surprise. Our adjudicatory system contemplates laying all cards on the table. There can be no ace up the Judge's sleeve. The outcome of the judgment may be a bolt from the blue but its substance must not. In the sense, it should contain nothing that was not discussed during the course of the proceedings or during the interface of the bar and bench," it said. .The Court passed the ruling on an appeal filed by one P Palanikumar against the dismissal of his suit for the recovery of ₹31.54 lakh. Palanikumar claimed that the defendant, R Selvi, had borrowed ₹25 lakh from him on June 5, 2015 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with 12 per cent annual interest.He also claimed that Selvi had deposited the original sale deed of her property with him. After she failed to repay the money, Palanikumar issued a legal notice and later filed the suit.The defendant (Selvi) did not file a written statement. She also did not cross-examine the plaintiff (Palanikumar) or lead evidence.Despite this, the trial court dismissed the suit. It held that Palanikumar had not proved his financial capacity to lend ₹25 lakh, the mode of payment or the execution of the promissory note..On appeal, the High Court said the trial court could not have rendered an adverse finding on the plaintiff’s capacity to lend when the defendant had not challenged it. The High Court also noted that the trial judge had not put any question to the plaintiff on that issue.It further observed that Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers judges to ask any question to witnesses or parties to clarify doubts. Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure also enables courts to orally examine parties on material questions.However, if such questions are put, their substance must be recorded in writing under Order 10 Rule 3 CPC, the Court added.“The learned trial Judge not having put even a single court question could not have rendered an adverse finding on a point that was not challenged,” the Bench said.The Court further held that merely because the transaction was not reflected in the plaintiff’s income tax returns, it could not be concluded that the transaction did not take place.'The approach of the Court below is utterly unsatisfactory and the reasons given by the Court below are clearly unsustainable," the High Court eventually concluded..Palanikumar's appeal was, therefore, allowed."The Appeal Suit stands allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. After the defendant satisfies the decree, he can apply to the Court below and take back the original title document," the Court said. .The appellant was represented by advocates Raghuvaran Gopalan and L Siva.The respondent was represented by advocate J Lawrance..[Read Judgment]