SC Sets Aside HC Judgment Because Of Poor English [Read SC Order & HC Judgment]

The Supreme Court had to recently set aside a judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, because of the convoluted English used in the judgment.

“After hearing learned counsel, it is not possible to comprehend the contents of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits,” the Bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta observed.

The dispute in question involved an eviction petition filed by the landlord against his tenant in November, 1999, for alleged non-payment of rent. The landlord did receive a warrant of possession in December, 2011. The warrant could, however, only be partly executed and the tenant was evicted from the portion of the property where he ran his shop.

The High Court had then in December, 2016 allowed the tenant’s case, and set aside his eviction on the ground that the landlord had received the rent amount. It was this judgment that had now left the Apex Court, as well as the lawyers representing both the parties in a fix.

Here are a few sections of the impugned judgment:

“(The)...tenant in the demised premises stands aggrieved by the pronouncement made by the learned Executing Court upon his objections constituted therebefore...wherewithin the apposite unfoldments qua his resistance to the execution of the decree stood discountenanced by the learned Executing Court”.

“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.”

Read the Supreme Court Order and High Court Judgment here.