Brevity must be observed while expressing opinion; remarks passed against unnecessarily lengthy judgment of H.P. High Court: SC

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ. while upholding a judgment passed by Himachal Pradesh High Court showed displeasure at it being unnecessarily lengthy.

The Court was deciding appeals filed against the order of the High Court whereby it had allowed revision petitions filed by respondents. Having heard the appellants, the Court found no good reason to interfere in the order impugned because the High Court had only remanded the matter back to First Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that in the facts of the case, the appeals could not be allowed and the same were dismissed.

Before parting with the matter, the Court observed, “having rightly formed an opinion to remand the case to the First Appellate Court, there was no need for the High Court to devote 60 pages in writing the impugned order.” In Court’s view, it was not required. Further, “examination could be confined only to the issue of remand and not beyond it.  At the same time, there was no need to cite several decisions and that too in detail. Brevity being a virtue, it must be observed as far as possible while expressing an opinion.” [Surjeet Singh v. Sadhu Singh,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2658, decided on 03-12-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.