Judicial Grace In Addressing Bar Is Non-Negotiable; Courts Must Moderate Tone & Temper, Especially With Senior Advocates: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reminded trial courts that the propriety of judicial conduct and temper in addressing the Bar is a non-negotiable aspect of judicial grace, particularly when senior advocates with long-standing experience and due sense of responsibility are representing litigants. The Court observed that a court is supposed to moderate its tone and tenor...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reminded trial courts that the propriety of judicial conduct and temper in addressing the Bar is a non-negotiable aspect of judicial grace, particularly when senior advocates with long-standing experience and due sense of responsibility are representing litigants. The Court observed that a court is supposed to moderate its tone and tenor when dealing with such members of the Bar.
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiffs in a civil suit pending before the Court of Munsiff, Katra, challenging an order whereby the trial court closed the right of the petitioners to advance arguments on an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave to file a replica.
The bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,
“This Court would humbly remind the Presiding Officer of the court of Munsiff, Katra that propriety 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.”
In the instant case the petitioners instituted a civil suit in 2023 for declaration with consequential relief, accompanied by an application for grant of temporary injunction. On the same day, the trial court granted an ex-parte ad-interim status quo direction. The respondents appeared, filed their written statements, and replied to the temporary injunction application. The temporary injunction application remained pending for final disposal. The petitioners filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file a replica to the written statements.
On March 28, 2026, the Presiding Officer was on leave, and the matter was simply put up for April 4, 2026 without specifying what proceedings were to take place. On April 4, 2026, the trial court closed the petitioners' right to advance arguments on the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, leading to the present petition.
Court's Observation:
The Court read the order dated April 4, 2026 in conjunction with the earlier order dated March 28, 2026 and found that the trial court's over-seriousness was misplaced, even if well-meaning of inducing urgency into the proceedings. The Court remarked,
“…. 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 Court held that the trial court had closed the right of the petitioners to advance arguments on the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC without adequate justification. The Court observed that the very text of the order passed by the trial court reflected a state of mind that was not tempered with judicial grace.
The Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the trial court shall first take up the long-pending temporary injunction application for adjudication and dispose it of by or before May 30, 2026. Only after disposal of the temporary injunction application shall the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC be taken up for adjudication and disposed of by or before June 30, 2026, the court directed.
The Court clarified that in case of any avoidance on the part of counsel, the trial court would be well within its discretion to reserve the applications for adjudicatory orders. A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the learned Munsiff, Katra for compliance.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar & Anr. Vs Mohan Singh & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)