4 Jan 2024 2:08 PM GMT
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment (on January 03), highlighted the importance of ensuring judicial discipline. The Court went on to observe that when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High Court is brought to the notice, it is to be respected and is binding on the bench. However, the same is subject to right of a co-equal quorum bench to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench.
“The rule of 'Judicial Discipline and Propriety' and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions.”
“Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength.”
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal made these observations while deciding a civil appeal. The factual matrix of the case is such that an appellant (Mary Pushpam) instituted a civil suit in 1995 for declaration of possession and permanent injunction against the respondents. Importantly, the basis for filing the suit was that earlier in 1976, the respondents had filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant. However, this first suit (of 1976) was dismissed at all stages starting from the trial court to the High Court vide its order dated March 30, 1990, in the second appeal.
During the proceedings of the second suit i.e, of 1995, respondents prayed for the dismissal of suit. Respondents contended that they owned 8 cents of land. They argued that the first suit filed by them (which was dismissed) was with respect to the constructions raised by the appellant and not with respect to 8 cents of land.
One of the issues before the Trial Court was whether the judgment of the High Court in first suit was related to the entire 8 cents of the property or only to the house in a portion of the land in dispute. Subsequently, the Trial Court decreed the suit only with respect to the portion over which the house property was situated out of the total extent of 8 cents of the suit property. With respect to the other property, the suit was dismissed. Notably, the High Court, in an appeal, relied on its judgment passed in the first suit and declared that the appellants were entitled for the entire suit property. However, in its second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of the Trial Court. Against this backdrop, matter came before the Top Court.
At the outset, the Apex Court pointed out that while deciding the first suit, the High Court at number of places has recorded that the suit property comprised of 8 cents of land. In support of this, the Court reproduced the concerned paras of the High Court judgment. Thus, the Court ruled that interpreting the said judgement which was clear in itself any differently would clearly amount to judicial indiscipline.
Apart from the aforementioned findings, the Court also briefly touched upon the doctrine of merger. The doctrine is based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter. Accordingly, the Court opined that, as per this doctrine, the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court from the first suit are absorbed into the previous High Court's judgment dated March 30, 1990.
“Following the principles of judicial discipline, lower or subordinate Courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts. In the current case, the Trial Court and the High Court, in the second round of litigation, violated this judicial discipline by adopting a position contrary to the High Court's final judgment dated 30.03.1990, from the first round of litigation.,” the Court added.
In view of these facts and circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Case Title: MARY PUSHPAM vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND ORS., Diary No.- 31338 - 2009
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12
Click here to read the judgment