9/26/22, 11:34 PM Mst. Kiran Chhabra And Anr. vs Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain And Ors.
on 14 February, 2011
Mst. Kiran Chhabra And Anr. vs Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain And Ors. on 14 February, 2011
indiankanoon.org/doc/164999544
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Delhi High Court
Mst. Kiran Chhabra And Anr. vs Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain And Ors. on 14 February, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
11
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)No.1671/2009
Date of Decision : 14th February, 2011
MST. KIRAN CHHABRA AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Shams Khwaja, Adv.
versus
MR. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Shanker Divate, Mr. Raja
Chatterjee and Ms. Puja
Anand, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
J.R. MIDHA, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed the brief note of
submissions. However, the learned counsel has utterly failed to
address the number of judgments relating to
the issues involved.
Some of the relevant judgments in this regard to the notice of this
Court are Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal & Anr.,
AIR 2005 SC 4446,
Shri Sant Singh vs. Shri K.G. Ringshia,
CS(OS) No.2011/1984 decided on 24th May, 2010, Splendor
Landbase Limited vs. Mirage Infra Limited & Anr., CS(OS)
No.582/2009 decided on 8th February, 2010 and Splendor
Landbase Limited vs. Mirage Infra Limited & Anr., FAO(OS)
No.150/2010 decided on 9th April, 2010.
2. When the Court calls for written arguments to be submitted, it
is expected to be something as would assist the Court in its
endeavour to do justice and decide the case.
Simply filing a list of
judgments and attaching photocopies does not assist the Court nor
does filing long-winded arguments which are not structured and
properly
arranged.
3. Written arguments, which Order XVIII Rule 2(3A) of the Code of
Civil Procedure also recognizes, ought to be such that would assist
the Court. The pattern would vary
from case to case but generally
Written Arguments should comprise a very brief list of dates, the
admitted facts and the disputed facts. The points to be decided
should be
duly formulated as questions or propositions. In case
issues have been framed, separate arguments on each issue are
necessary unless two or more issues are such which
can be more
conveniently addressed together. The factual premises on which a
particular argument is given has to be stated on each issue so that
the proposition can be
appreciated in that light.
4. For each proposition, after stating the factual premises on
which a particular argument is given, there should be first the
applicable statute which can even be excerpted.
Only then, case-
law may be cited not just as the legal database on a computer
shows up on a query; but each judgment has to be examined and
only the more relevant ones
for each topic be cited. The Court
expects the lawyers to place all case laws, both for and against his
case, so long as it is relevant to the proposition in question. Those
from
the Supreme Court be placed first; those from our High Court
be placed next; and those from other High Courts be placed
thereafter. In each grouping, the judgments are
to be arranged in a
reverse chronological order. This is in line with the law relating to
precedents. Thereafter, for each decided case which appears to be
important, a brief
resume of the factual scenario in which the
judgment was rendered, is necessary whereafter the relevant
portion can be excerpted or described.
5. If there are older judgments which have been noticed in a later
judgment, then the older judgment need not be cited. But if the
later judgment merely follows and says
nothing new, then the older
judgment, which contains the reasoning and also lays down the law,
should be cited and against the first (later judgment) it ought to be
noted
that it simply follows or approves a particular earlier
judgment. In that event, the earlier judgment may be excerpted or
discussed together with a brief resume of the
factual scenario in that
case.
6. After the judgments have been cited or portions excerpted,
the ratio-decidendi of the judgment needs to be stated, for, it is the
ratio-decidendi and not the conclusion,
that is binding as a
precedent.
7. If there is a contention of the opposite side, it must be
answered, and not ignored or left for the court to look for an answer.
When all the points or proposition on which
the arguments are
addressed have been stated, there has to be a summing up so that
the Court can get a fair idea of what the arguments are leading to.
8. Throughout these written arguments, page numbers and
placitums of the documents or other material on the court record,
and the reported judgment, must be given so
that the Court can
readily reach it in order to verify.
9. Lastly, keeping them brief is more helpful than giving a long
mass of something which could even be incoherent. Structuring is
most important. If an approach as this
followed, the Court gets full
assistance, much lesser time of the Court is consumed, and there is
less likelihood of the Court falling into error.
10. The parties are directed to file the written submissions not
exceeding five pages on the above terms along with the copies of
the judgments with relevant portions
highlighted for the
convenience of the court at least one week before the next date of
hearing. The photocopies of the relevant pages of the documents
already on record
with relevant portions highlighted be also
attached to the written submissions for ready reference and
convenience of the Court.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164999544/ 1/2
9/26/22, 11:34 PM Mst. Kiran Chhabra And Anr. vs Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain And Ors. on 14 February, 2011
11. List on 14th March, 2011.
12. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for both
parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
aj
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164999544/ 2/2
