Whether court should set aside exparte decree relying on affidavit without verifying factual position from record?

 Adverting to the impugned order, it would be noticed that the
learned Court has simply chosen to rely upon the contents of the application
only because the same was supported by the affidavit of the respondents.
Despite the factual aspects being disputed, it did not care to verify the factual
position from the records and proceeded to allow the application by
observing that expression sufficient cause should be construed to advance
substantial justice and the Court should not take strict and pedantic approach
and that the petitioner could conveniently be compensated by imposing cost
and then proceeded to award Rs.1,500/- as cost.
15. Obviously, learned trial Court has fallen in error in relying upon
the contents of the averment which were clearly belied by the documents
placed on record more particularly the summons that have been received
back after the service of respondents No.1 and 4. Therefore, the ultimate
award of costs would be no panacea in such cases, since the mischief
cannot be repaired. The order passed by the learned Court below is clearly
unsustainable and is therefore set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 308 of 2016.

Date of decision : November 8th, 2016

Dinesh Kumar 
 V
Jyoti Prakash and others 
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Citation:AIR 2017 HP26

Print Page

Whether judgment can be read as statute divorced from facts of case?

 It is well settled that a judgment cannot be read like a Statute.
Construction of a judgment should be made in the light of the factual
matrix involved therein. What is more important is to see the issues
involved in a given case, and the context wherein the observations were
made by the Court while  deciding  the  case. Observation  made in a
judgment, it is trite, should not be read in isolation and out of context.
[See:  Goan  Real   Estate  and  Construction  Ltd.   v.   Union  of  India,
(2010) 5 SCC 388]: (2010 AIR SCW 2671)]. It is the  ratio of the
judgment, and not every observation made in the context of the facts of
a particular case under consideration of the court, which constitutes a
binding precedent. The Supreme Court in  P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra
Bank Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 5152 has held as follows:
"138.   While   analyzing   different   decisions   rendered   by   this   Court,   an
attempt has been made to read the judgments as should be read under the
rule of precedents. A decision, it is trite, should not be read as a statute.
139. A decision is an authority for the questions of law determined by it.
While applying the ratio, the court may not pick out a word or a sentence

from the judgment divorced from the context in which the said question
arose for consideration. A judgment as is well­known, must be read in its
entirety and the observations made therein should receive consideration in
the   light   of   the   questions   raised   before   it.   (See   Haryana   Financial
Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr., [2002] 1 SCR
621 : (AIR 2002 SC 834). Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and
Ors. , (1996) 6 SCC 44 : (1996 AIR SCW 4020) Dr. Nalini Mahajan v.
Director  of  Income­tax  (Investigation)   and  Ors.,   [2002]   257   ITR  123
(Delhi) (2003 Tax LR 18 (Del) State of U.P. and Anr. v. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. , 1991 (4) SCC 139 , A­One Granites v. State of
U.P. and Ors., 2001 AIR SCW 848 and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana
Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : (AIR 2003 SC 511)
140. Although, decisions are galore on this point, we may refer to a recent
one   in   State   of   Gujarat   and   Ors.   v.   Akhil   Gujarat   Pravasi   V.S.
Mahamandal and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3894 wherein this Court held:
"...   It   is   trite   that   any   observation   made   during   the   course   of
reasoning  in a judgment  should  not  be read divorced  from the

context in which they were used."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
NO. 968 of 2014

NIKHIL P GANDHI.
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 15/06/2016

Citation: 2016 CRLJ4338 Guj

Print Page