The Supreme Court on Friday remanded a matter to the Himachal Pradesh High Court after finding the judgment under challenge incomprehensible. [Sukh Lal vs Thakur Singh Negi]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli set aside the final order under challenge and directed the High Court to dispose of the case afresh within three months.Quoting from the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court held,"The above findings are incomprehensible. It is not reasonably possible to understand the reasons which weighed with the High Court in reversing the view of the first appellate authority in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.".The appellant before the top court, a landlord, had filed a plea for eviction on the grounds of arrears and bonafide need. The Rent Controller by a November 2013, order partly-allowed the petition on the basis of the first ground, while holding that the latter was not established. This was challenged before an additional district judge, who by a June 2014 order, allowed the appeal. The tenant then moved the High Court which, in 2019, reversed the district judge's findings, leading to the present appeal before the top court. .A portion of the judgment of the High Court which was under under challenge read as follows:"The afore purported bonafide requirements, of, the landlord, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, was endavoured, to be stained, with a vice of malafides, (i) on anvil of his concealing, and, suppressing the factum qua even apart, from, the afore premises, his, upon, the demise, of, the previous landlady, one, Parwati, rather holding derivative possession of three rooms, as stood occupied by the afore, during, her life time. The afore contention, reared by the petitioner herein/tenant, in his reply, to the eviction petition, and, as borne, in paragraph No.12, of, the apposite reply, (i) was neither 3 pointedly nor with apt aplomb, hence meted, a graphic denial, (ii) and, given no pointed graphic denial being meted by the landlord, vis-a-vis, the afore contention, reared in paragraph No.12, of the tenant's reply, to the corresponding para, of, the eviction petition, (iii) obviously carries, the requisite sequeling effects, qua the landlord acquiescing, qua his holding possession, of, the afore premises, and, when there is obviously no explanation emanating, from, the landlord, that, upon, combining the area of the afore premises, with the area of the premises, already in his possession, (iv) thereupon, too, he would face deficit or shortfall, in accommodation, for his meteing, the bonafide requirement, for housing himself, and, his family members.”The apex court said that the same was incomprehensible and set aside the verdict and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration."We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25 July 2019 in Civil Revision No 116 of 2014, which is restored to the file of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for a fresh decision. However, since the revision pertains to the year 2014, we request the High Court to take it up for final disposal preferably within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed on the record. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open," the top court directed..The Himachal Pradesh High Court had come under fire from the Supreme Court earlier too for similar reasons.In April 2017, a Bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta had set aside a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court because of the convoluted English used in the judgment.A Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra had in December 2018 taken exception to the fact that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had devoted 60 pages to write an order for remanding a matter to the first appellate court.In March 2021, the top court was left stumped by language blues after it could not decipher a judgment in appeal, once again from the Himachal Pradesh High Court.In January this year, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha had said that it might have to send a case back to the High Court with a direction to rewrite the judgment since the language employed in the judgment was incomprehensible. "Is this in Latin," the Bench had quipped.In August this year, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the same High Court after finding that its verdict by the High Court was "utterly incomprehensible".A Bench led by Justice Chandrachud recently, while remanding a matter to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, had said that incomprehensible orders do disservice to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to citizens. .[Read order]
The Supreme Court on Friday remanded a matter to the Himachal Pradesh High Court after finding the judgment under challenge incomprehensible. [Sukh Lal vs Thakur Singh Negi]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli set aside the final order under challenge and directed the High Court to dispose of the case afresh within three months.Quoting from the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court held,"The above findings are incomprehensible. It is not reasonably possible to understand the reasons which weighed with the High Court in reversing the view of the first appellate authority in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.".The appellant before the top court, a landlord, had filed a plea for eviction on the grounds of arrears and bonafide need. The Rent Controller by a November 2013, order partly-allowed the petition on the basis of the first ground, while holding that the latter was not established. This was challenged before an additional district judge, who by a June 2014 order, allowed the appeal. The tenant then moved the High Court which, in 2019, reversed the district judge's findings, leading to the present appeal before the top court. .A portion of the judgment of the High Court which was under under challenge read as follows:"The afore purported bonafide requirements, of, the landlord, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, was endavoured, to be stained, with a vice of malafides, (i) on anvil of his concealing, and, suppressing the factum qua even apart, from, the afore premises, his, upon, the demise, of, the previous landlady, one, Parwati, rather holding derivative possession of three rooms, as stood occupied by the afore, during, her life time. The afore contention, reared by the petitioner herein/tenant, in his reply, to the eviction petition, and, as borne, in paragraph No.12, of, the apposite reply, (i) was neither 3 pointedly nor with apt aplomb, hence meted, a graphic denial, (ii) and, given no pointed graphic denial being meted by the landlord, vis-a-vis, the afore contention, reared in paragraph No.12, of the tenant's reply, to the corresponding para, of, the eviction petition, (iii) obviously carries, the requisite sequeling effects, qua the landlord acquiescing, qua his holding possession, of, the afore premises, and, when there is obviously no explanation emanating, from, the landlord, that, upon, combining the area of the afore premises, with the area of the premises, already in his possession, (iv) thereupon, too, he would face deficit or shortfall, in accommodation, for his meteing, the bonafide requirement, for housing himself, and, his family members.”The apex court said that the same was incomprehensible and set aside the verdict and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration."We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25 July 2019 in Civil Revision No 116 of 2014, which is restored to the file of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for a fresh decision. However, since the revision pertains to the year 2014, we request the High Court to take it up for final disposal preferably within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed on the record. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open," the top court directed..The Himachal Pradesh High Court had come under fire from the Supreme Court earlier too for similar reasons.In April 2017, a Bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta had set aside a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court because of the convoluted English used in the judgment.A Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra had in December 2018 taken exception to the fact that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had devoted 60 pages to write an order for remanding a matter to the first appellate court.In March 2021, the top court was left stumped by language blues after it could not decipher a judgment in appeal, once again from the Himachal Pradesh High Court.In January this year, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha had said that it might have to send a case back to the High Court with a direction to rewrite the judgment since the language employed in the judgment was incomprehensible. "Is this in Latin," the Bench had quipped.In August this year, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the same High Court after finding that its verdict by the High Court was "utterly incomprehensible".A Bench led by Justice Chandrachud recently, while remanding a matter to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, had said that incomprehensible orders do disservice to the cause of ensuring accessible and understandable justice to citizens. .[Read order]
