Judgment

The doctrine of "sub-silentio" accentuates a legal principle where a judgment is rendered without specifically and precisely avowing or attending to the exact question of law raised for determination

In fact, sub silentio, a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"

In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment

This doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed

A decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law, and without citation of authority

Such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight.

The doctrine of "sub-silentio" accentuates a legal principle where a judgment is rendered without specifically and precisely avowing or attending to the exact question of law raised for determination

In fact, sub silentio, a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"

In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment

This doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed

A decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law, and without citation of authority

Such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight.

Revenue Authorities passed orders against the petitioners qua an adjustment order for which they had decree passed by Civil Court in their favour

Validity

Record revealed that adjustment order-in-question was passed on the basis of a civil court decree having been passed about three decades ago (in the year 1993), which had attained finality

Revenue officers are bound to honour civil court judgments which cannot be upset or reversed by revenue authorities

In the present case, the Revenue authority acted in disregard of limitation, ignored binding civil decree, and exceeded jurisdiction

Core issue had already been adjudicated up to the level of the High Court, wherein it was held that the petitioners had established their possession

However, the Revenue Authorities failed to take into consideration the binding decisions of the civil courts, which had already been duly upheld by the appellate/District as well as the revisional/High court

The long-standing entries of revenue record in favour of petitioners enjoy presumption of correctness which could not be casually unsettled

Moreover, the concerned Revenue Authorities implemented the said orders at their own sweet will as nothing specific was mentioned in the impugned order, as to what was the error in record and how and in which manner it was to be corrected; in such way over 3000 Kanals of pure TDA owned land has been mutated in favour of the respondent who subsequently sold it to various people illegally

Said subsequent sale of land during pendency of lis was illegal and void

Member-Board of Revenue set-aside the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities declaring the same to be without lawful authority, void ab initio, of no legal effect; consequently , any action taken pursuant to the impugned orders in the revenue record stood annulled forthwith

Revenue Revisions were allowed accordingly.

It is the hallmark of a robust judicial system to allow for the expression of supplementary views that may fortify the decision's legal foundation and contribute to the richness of our legal tradition.

Judgment in personam binds specific parties to the litigation.

Supreme Court deprecated such practice and observed that not inscribing the date when a judgment is written, signed and pronounced is connected with the belated writing of judgments; that Judgment must be written within a reasonable time of the case being heard, and Judges who do not decide cases quickly and do not write judgments within a reasonable time may be guilty of misconduct.

Simply announcing the result of the case after hearing it but before it is written, containing the grounds/reasons for the decision, does not constitute a judgment/decision

Judgment/decision explains how and why the court decided a case in a particular manner.

Complaint filed by respondent / complainant was partly accepted by Consumer Court imposing compensatory amount against appellant

Validity

Irrespective of the issue of strict application of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Consumer Court was bestowed with powers to adjudicate upon rights and liabilities of parties and to pass legally binding and judicially executable judgments/orders imposing fulfilment of obligations upon parties and directing payment of compensation as well as damages under S. 31 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

Final order of Consumer Court passed under S.31 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, at the very least, pass the test of being a legally valid judgment/order depicting independent application of judicial mind upon critical aspects of a controversy

Pivotal issues were not determined by Consumer Court and there was no narrative/discourse available in the order about actual issue on the basis of which claim was preferred and allowed

High Court set aside order passed by Consumer Court as there was no discourse in the order about how the Court came to the conclusion and matter was remanded for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

When basic order/judgment/decree is found illegal or void then the entire superstructure built on it falls on the ground.

If a judgment discusses all points raised it fulfills the requirement of law even though it may not have discussed each issue separately.

Issues were decided by Banking Court only on the basis of affidavit-in-evidence without giving own findings and recording own reasons before deciding the two issues in affirmative

Decision on three issues, having factually admitted position, was given accordingly, as such issues did not require any deliberation/decision on the part of Banking Court

For decision on remaining issues, Banking Court either reproduced facts of case, extracts from depositions, cross-examination, or contents of letters furnished during the course of arguments

Judgment, to some extent, lacked independent decision on the issues

Though Banking Court was justified in reproducing contents of affidavit-in-evidence, cross-examination, other depositions, contents of letters, etc. and other various documents produced before it but judgment should also carry reasons for deciding issues, which aspect was lacking in the matter

Though judgment was quite elaborate in nature but the same mainly contained reproductions, and aspects of giving reasoning of eleven issues framed in the matter were wanting

Banking Court did not properly adjudicate upon the matter which needed proper decision on the issues so framed in the suit

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed against appellant/Bank and matter was remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh

High Court directed Banking Court to give independent reasonings and decision on the issues except those which were factually admitted

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Neither necessary nor the requirement of law that Court should issue a separate notice and offer an opportunity of hearing to each and every person who is likely to be affected, and bound, by judgment in rem

Meaning and scope of a judgment in rem stated.

Judgment is an authority only in respect to what it decides, and only with regard to the proposition of law raised, in that case, and therefore point not argued before the Court cannot be considered to have been dealt with by its judgment.

In case an appeal or revision is provided before a superior court against an order passed by any Court or Tribunal or any other authority and the superior court where the appeal is preferred modifies, reverses or affirms the decision of lower fora then the order or decision passed by subordinate or lower forum is merged into the decision rendered by superior courts which will remain operative for enforcement in accordance with law

In order to apply the doctrine of merger in letter and spirit, there must be a decision of a subordinate forum or Tribunal and against any such decision, there must be a right of appeal or revision provided under the relevant law

While deciding any such appeal or revision, the appellate forum must have affirmed, modified or reversed the order or judgment of the court below.

Judgment is an authority only in respect to what it decides, and only with regard to the proposition of law raised, in that case, and therefore point not argued before the Court cannot be considered to have been dealt with by its judgment.

Neither necessary nor the requirement of law that Court should issue a separate notice and offer an opportunity of hearing to each and every person who is likely to be affected, and bound, by judgment in rem

Meaning and scope of a judgment in rem stated.

In case an appeal or revision is provided before a superior court against an order passed by any Court or Tribunal or any other authority and the superior court where the appeal is preferred modifies, reverses or affirms the decision of lower fora then the order or decision passed by subordinate or lower forum is merged into the decision rendered by superior courts which will remain operative for enforcement in accordance with law

In order to apply the doctrine of merger in letter and spirit, there must be a decision of a subordinate forum or Tribunal and against any such decision, there must be a right of appeal or revision provided under the relevant law

While deciding any such appeal or revision, the appellate forum must have affirmed, modified or reversed the order or judgment of the court below.

If a judgment is to change or alter or modify the ruling of the court below, it would be said that the judgment has varied the ruling of the lower court

However, where the same is set aside, or upheld, no modification takes place and the impugned ruling of the court below is either accepted in toto or reversed absolutely

Where a judgment is partially upheld, and partially reversed, and only that part of the judgment has been challenged which is partially maintained, then the same cannot fall under the ambit of variation, and would have to be considered as a judgment "upheld" to one extent, and a judgment "set aside" to the rest of it.

Respondent/plaintiff on the basis of ejectment order passed by Rent Controller, filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent

Single Judge of High Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Plea raised by appellant/defendant was that judgment did not fulfil mandatory requirement of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C. as evidence brought on record was not properly discussed while deciding issues

Validity

Respondent/plaintiff could not successfully rebut testimony of witness of appellant/defendant who stated that on 29-1-2000 possession of premises was taken second time through execution proceedings of Rent Case, whereas it had already handed over to respondent/ plaintiff on 20-2-1998, therefore, finding on such issue in judgment under appeal was not correct

Appellant/defendant was liable to pay rent only for 4th and 5th floors to respondent/plaintiff

With regard to quantum of rent and other charges offer of respondent/plaintiff was not accepted and evidence brought on record was conclusive that rate of rent was Rs.5 per square foot

Appellant/ defendant was liable to pay arrears of rent for the area they had occupied

Judgment under appeal was based on averments of respondent/plaintiff and outcome of earlier rent proceedings and did not contain appraisal of evidence, therefore, did not fulfil requirement of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C., which was mandatory in nature

Division Bench of High Court modified quantum of arrears of rent in the decree passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Suit filed by plaintiffs was partially decreed by Trial Court in his favour while counter suit filed by defendant was completely decreed

Plea raised by plaintiffs was that Trial Court did not record issue-wise findings

Validity

Under mandatory provisions of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C. judgment should contain findings on all issues separately but Trial Court did not bother to discuss issues separately

Trial Court discussed many issues together and recorded common findings on many issues, which was an illegality and was in contravention of mandatory provision of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C.

Civil Court was bound to strictly follow provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in letter and spirit and to save wastage of time which was to take place on account of its aberration

Chief Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by Trial Court as the same were result of material irregularity and illegality

High Court directed Trial Court to rewrite judgments and case was so remanded

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Judicial order must be speaking one and must show that Judge or a Tribunal had applied its mind to all the points involved in the case and had decided the case after attending the arguments pro and contra

Judgment was to be based on evidence/material available on the record and the reasons in support of the judgment

Order of court was to conform with the provisions of law i.e. contain concise statement of the case, the points for determination which had been raised or had arisen in the case, decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.

While a dissenting note had no legal force, the purpose of such endeavour was to appeal to the brooding spirit of the law in the hope that what may be dissent today becomes the law tomorrow.

Connotation.

Trial court convicted two of the accused persons under Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149, P.P.C.; charge against them was also framed under Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 337-F(iii), P.P.C., however, impugned judgment was silent qua acquittal or conviction of accused persons in said provisions

Impugned judgment was held to be against the mandate of S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Conviction awarded to the appellants was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment

Trial Court was directed to give its findings with regard to acquittal or conviction of each accused person with reference to the offences with which he was charged

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

"Per incuriam" in essence meant that in context of judgments/orders of court that such judgments/orders were patently wrong as they were passed in ignorance of law which most often was not brought to attention of court before it passed order/judgment in question

Contrary to a binding order/judgment of a superior court on same point which was decided before courts judgments/orders and which was not brought to its attention

Likewise, a statute which already answered legal point which was subject matter of judgment/order but which was not brought to attention of court before it made its judgment/order which lead to judgment/order being wrong as a matter of law.

Accused were charged for committing murder of four persons by causing fire arm injuries and causing fire arm injuries to three persons with intention to commit their murder

Three persons were injured allegedly by the accused persons and others with intention to commit murder and determination of such fact was found to be proved by the Trial Court

Trial Court, in circumstances, was obliged to record conviction against the accused persons for the said proved point but it was not done so, for no obvious reasons

Such omission on the part of the Trial Court could not be overlooked, as it was a clear departure from the mandatory requirements of S. 367(2) & (4) of Cr.P.C.

Conviction and sentence, as recorded against the accused persons for an offence punishable under S. 302(b), read with S. 149, P.P.C., did not specify as to whether it was for single, double, triple or quarterable murder, although the accused persons were specifically charged for committing murder of four persons

Concluding part of the impugned judgment had made it clear that Trial Court had found the accused persons to be guilty for having committed murders of all the four deceased but the sentence/conviction so awarded to the accused persons seemed to be for single murder

Such omission had rendered the impugned judgment illegal

Impugned judgment to the extent of accused persons was set aside by the High Court with direction to Trial Court to conduct de novo trial of the accused persons in accordance with law

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

If any legal errors are found then they are not to be ignored if they cause prejudice to either party and if such errors are curable then appropriate steps are taken to rectify the same.

View expressed by a Bench of greater numerical strength is to be followed even if same was expressed prior in time to a different view expressed by a Bench of smaller numerical strength at some subsequent stage.

Short order announced by the court of competent jurisdiction had the operational effect of judgement pronounced by the court.

Appellate Court without discussing oral evidence of parties and points for determination raised during the hearing proceeded to reverse the findings of Trial Court through a half page findings

Judgment rendered by the Appellate Court was not a "speaking judgment"

Oral evidence led on record had been simply ignored and not discussed

Contentions of the parties raised during the hearing of appeal had not been mentioned in the impugned findings

Appellate Court had ignored the basic provision contained in O. XLI, R.31, C.P.C.

Appellate Court should state points arising for determination and its decision thereon and reasons for its decision

'Points for determination' referred to all the important questions involved in the case

Reasons should be given in the judgment for the decision arrived at

Appellate Court was required to state its own reasons for arriving at its conclusion

Appellate Court had failed to mention the points for determination or record his own independent reasons for arriving at its conclusions different from the Trial Court opinion/findings

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was not in accordance with law which was set aside

Appeal should be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court and same should be decided afresh in accordance with law after opportunity of hearing to the parties

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Mere non-mentioning or wrong citation of a provision of law (in the judgment) would not per se vitiate the judgment.

Judgment was to contain the concise statement of case; the points for determination; findings on each point pressed/argued by the parties and reasons for the decision.

Scope.

Not safe to pronounce judgment on the provision of one Act with reference to decision dealing with other Acts which are not pari materia.

Requirements.

Doctrine of merger was applicable to the reversal and modification cases and also to all those cases in which the judgment etc. of a lower forum had been affirmed in appeal or revision by a higher forum(s) (subject to certain exceptions)

Where any law or statutory rule on being challenged was interpreted and decided one way or the other by the superior court, such interpretation should be applied by the concerned public, statutory agencies, authorities, bodies and functionaries

Judgment of superior court was not only binding on all the subordinate courts and tribunals but also on all public and statutory functionaries.

Judgment passed without jurisdiction is nullity in the eye of law.

Judgment must be lucid, should contain discussion of evidence, reasons of the decision and not merely the conclusion.

Meaning.

Holding otherwise would be wrong in principle, and it would serve to encourage unmeritorious appeals and discourage full, considered and informative judgments

Different considerations would however apply where an error of fact might well have affected the outcome (of the case).

Judgment should supply adequate reasons for the conclusion reached and arrived at and should be reflective of application of proper judicial mind by the judge and it should not be a mechanical and non-speaking judgment.

Where a judge/court did not pronounce a judgment for resolving the legal and factual issues involved in a dispute before it at all, the very purpose of the judicial branch of the State would be frustrated and eroded

Where there was no judgment in terms of law, the entire judicial set up shall be rendered farce and illusionary, which obviously shall in turn disturb the equilibrium between the pillars of the State upon which it rested, resulting into serious impairment of the functioning of the State.

Short order/order of the court was in fact the judgment of the Court and was valid even in the absence of supporting reasons.

Courts were required to record issue-wise findings in order to ensure that substantial justice had been done and no prejudice had been caused to the parties

Appellate Court, in the present case, neither recorded issue-wise findings nor set out points for determination

Trial Court and Appellate Court were bound to consider and discuss the evidence of both the parties

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court had been recorded in a mechanical manner without discussing the material on record in detail

Revision was accepted and impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded for re-writing the judgment in accordance with law.

Purpose for framing points for determination in the judgment was to have all legal and factual controversies judicially determined which were agitated or had come out from the judgment of lower court.

Where there had been a relatively long and expensive hearing (of a case), it was important that the judge clearly identified for his own benefit as well as that of the parties, all the issues of fact and expert opinion that were in issue, and resolved in clear terms all such issues which were relevant on his view of the law, and, at least often, those issues which would be relevant if his view of the law turned out to be wrong

Otherwise, there was a real risk of a complete or partial rehearing being ordered, which would be very unfair on the parties, and would bring the administration of law into disrepute.

Words used by judges in explaining why they were deciding as they did were not be treated as if they were the words of statute, setting the rules in stone and precluding further principled development should new situations arise

Judicial statements were not to be treated as if they were statutes and they could never be set in stone.

Scope.

Distinction.