Jammu and Kashmir High Court recommends refresher course for civil judge who passed cryptic order

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently censured a civil judge for passing a cryptic order in a property dispute case and recommended that he be sent to Jammu & Kashmir Judicial Academy for a refresher course [Hakim Nazir V/s Commissioner, SMC, Srinagar].Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul ordered the High Court's registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders."It is well settled that judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one, where the mind of the Court needs to be revealed and cogent and convincing reasons need to be stated. However, when we go through impugned order, it order reflects total non-application of mind on the part of Presiding Officer. He needs refreshment course through J&K judicial academy," the Court ordered..The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order passed by the Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Srinagar on December 30, 2024 on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The petitioners had sought restoration of an iron gate allegedly demolished by Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC). However, the application was dismissed by the trial court.Challenging the same, the petitioners argued before the High Court that the civil court had not only ignored the substantive content of their application but also bypassed procedural norms by not issuing notice to the respondents..The civil court in its order had apparently not given any reasoning for dismissing the application.“Heard and perused the record. For the reasons stated in the order of the application, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Disposed of and made part of the main file,” the Magistrate had said. .The High Court termed the order 'cryptic' since the trial court had not discussed what provisions of Section 151 CPC provide for, what petitioners had prayed for and what reasons it had to dismiss the application.A non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic order passed or judgment delivered without taking into account the relevant facts, evidence available and the applicable law has always been looked at negatively and judicially derecognized by the courts, Justice Koul said."An unreasoned order does not subserve the doctrine of fair play," the Court emphasised..Accordingly, the Court set aside the trial court decision and asked it to decide the petitioners' application afresh after getting response/objections from other-side and after hearing both the parties..Advocate Sajad A Mir represented the petitioners. .[Read Judgment]