Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Mar 30: High Court today recorded that the judicial officers should pass orders and judgments precise and specific with regard to issues of the case and should not mention those facts in the orders or judgments which are not related to the case.
These observations were made by Justice Sanjay Dhar while dealing with a case whereby the order of 3rd Additional Munsiff Srinagar has been passed in an execution petition with regard to recovery of arrears of maintenance against the petitioner in favour of wife and children.
The order of trial court has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the trial Magistrate while passing the order under challenge has ignored that he and his wife along with child lived together from 06.07.2019 till 12.07.2020 pursuant to the settlement and, as such, during this period he was not obliged to pay any maintenance to his wife.
Justice Dhar has upheld the order of trial Magistrate as there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Magistrate so far as it pertains to direction for recovery of arrears of maintenance against the petitioner.
The court, however, deemed it necessary to make certain observations with regard to the manner in which the trial Magistrate has drafted the impugned order. The said order court added, runs into 22 pages but the contents which are relevant, run into only less than four pages.
Justice Dhar recorded that trial Magistrate while drafting the impugned order has delivered sermons addressed to counsel appearing for the petitioner as regards justice and delay in dispensation of justice by quoting different authors, research papers and judicial precedents.
“It is imperative for the Judicial Officers to keep in mind while drafting their orders and judgments that the same are precise and specific dealing with the issues arising in the case,” Justice Dhar recorded
It has further been clarified that the accuracy and precision should be goal of any judgment and the purpose of a judgment is not to show judge’s knowledge of legal maxims but to decide disputes in a competent manner and state the law in clear terms.
While dealing with the in the instant case, Justice Dhar recorded that the trial Magistrate has, while drafting the impugned order, tried to justify the reasons for delay in disposal of the cases and it appears that the same has been done in response to the grievance raised by counsel for the petitioner in the execution petition.
The Magistrate, court added, has tried to explain the compulsions which a Judicial Officer goes through while disposing of cases and the course adopted by the trial Magistrate, is absolutely un-necessary.
“The aggrieved counsel or party would have got his answer if a short and precise order dealing with his contentions had been…”, Justice Dhar added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel