Supreme Court: What is duty of a party if they are in doubt about interpretation of any judgment or order of the court?

 If at all the parties are in doubts over the judgment and order of a court, the correct approach is to prefer a miscellaneous application for seeking clarification rather than proceeding to presume a self-serving interpretation of the decision. At this stage, we may also explain the correct approach to be adopted by the other courts and forums where a party seeks to espouse a cause based on its own understanding or interpretation of a decision of an higher authority. In such situations, the courts or forums should neither aid the parties in their attempt to reinterpret the decision of a higher court nor should they embark on an inquisitorial exercise of their own in order to derive the scope or intent of the order in question. The courts and tribunals should not conflate a decision of a higher court that declares a law with a decision that declares the inter-se rights of a parties, the former only operates as a precedent and thus, it is open for the lower courts to apply their minds to assess whether the same is applicable to the issues before it or what law has been laid down therein. However, the latter not only has precedential value but also carries with it the weight of determination of the issues directly involved between the very parties before it, the subject-matter itself and by extension the entire cause of action. Since such decisions have directly decided or given a finding on the inter-se rights and issues of the same parties that are before it and as such has to a certain extent a direct and palpable effect on the cause of action before it, in such circumstances, the courts and tribunals should refrain from interpreting or examining the scope or effect of such decisions on their own as the same would amount to relitigating the very same issues and rather should relegate the parties to seek clarification from the court that passed the order and adjourn further proceedings sine die. {Para 206}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158-159 of 2024.

Decided On: 13.12.2024

Celir LLP Vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 978,MANU/SC/1343/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

What is duty of party if court has not framed proper issues?

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not framed issue regarding the pleadings raised by the appellants that the appellants are absolute owners of part of the suit land, which has been allotted to them during consolidation. In the absence of any pleadings, the appellants have suffered serious prejudice and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are not sustainable,

 10. The reliance of the learned counsel is on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Darshan Singh v. The Hindustan Cold Stores and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd., 1969 PLR 566. It has been held that it is the duty of the Court to read the plaint and written statement to frame issues. The said aspect cannot be disputed. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 4.9.1976. The matter remained pending before the trial Court for a considerable time, but the appellants have not sought modification of the issues as contemplated under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. Even if the Court has failed to frame any issue, it was incumbent upon the appellants to draw attention of the learned trial Court to frame proper issues at the earliest. However, now in the second appeal, it is too late for the appellants to allege that the proper issues were not framed. Therefore, the judgment referred by the learned counsel provides no help to the appellants.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

(Before Hemant Gupta, J.)

Chanan Singh Vs Santokh Singh 

R.S.A. No. 492 of 1981

Decided on January 10, 2007

Citation: 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 15 : (2007) 3 RCR (Civil) 32 : PLR (2007) 147 P&H 554 : (2007) 3 ICC 511

Print Page