Court Should Moderate Its Tone & Tenor With Advocates Having Seniority: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court To Trial Judge
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was considering a matter where the petitioners had instituted a civil suit for a declaration & temporary injunction.
While dealing with a civil matter, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reminded the Presiding Officer of the Court of Munsiff, Katra that proprietary of a judicial conduct and temper in addressing itself with the Bar is a non-negotiable aspect of judicial grace particularly with seniority bearing Advocates and the Court is supposed to moderate its tone and tenor which gets reflected from very text of an order.
The High Court was considering a matter where the petitioners had instituted a civil suit for declaration accompanied with an application for grant of temporary injunction.
The Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti stated, “This Court would humbly remind the Presiding Officer of the court of Munsiff, Katra that proprietary of a judicial conduct and temper in addressing itself with the learned Bar is a non-negotiable aspect of judicial grace, particularly when seniority bearing Advocates having long standing experience and due sense of responsibility not only towards their clients but also towards court are representing the litigants in courts, then a court is supposed to moderate its tone and tenor and which get reflected and exposed from very text of an order passed in that state of mind, be it agitative or equipoised.”
Advocate G. S. Thakur represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The Court of Munsiff had granted an ex parte ad interim status quo direction with respect to a land situated at the village Kundrorian in the district Reasi. From October 14, 2023, onwards, the said temporary injunction application of the petitioners was awaiting final disposal. Meanwhile, the petitioners preferred an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for filing a replica to the written statements so filed by the respondents.
The petitioners approached the High Court by filing a petition under article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the Court of Munsiff, wherein after referring to the sequence of events taking place on April 4, 2026 when the case was posted and called, the Munsiff Court, had closed the right of the petitioners for advancing arguments in the application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that before April 4, 2026, the case was posted on March 28, 2026, when the first petitioner as well as the defendant were present in person. The file was kept for objections under Order VIII Rule 9, but the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave and, as such, the matter was simply put up for April 4, 2026, without stating as to on said next date what proceedings were supposed to take place.
“...this is where a conjoint reading of order dated 28.03.2026 read with order dated 04.04.2026 would render the observations of the over-seriousness on the part of the Presiding Officer of the court of learned Munsiff, Katra bit misplaced even if appear to be well meaning of inducing and injecting urgency into the proceedings but then there was no occasion for the Presiding Officer of the court of Munsiff, Katra to get exhausted at 1:00 pm when the court time was meant to last up to 4:30 pm by which time the counsel for the petitioners could have been awaited considering the fact that Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate is an out stationed Advocate”, the Bench stated.
The Bench thus disposed of the petition with a direction to the Court of Munsiff, Katra, to first take up the application for temporary injunction for adjudication on the basis of the original plaint and written statements filed therein and dispose of said application by or before May 30, 2026. The Bench clarified that the application filed by the petitioners for leave to file a replica under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be taken up for adjudication only after the disposal of the temporary injunction application.
Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar & Anr. v. Mohan Singh & Anr. (Case No.: CM(M) No. 70/2026)