The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the Trial Courts are wholly competent to decide the questions of fact and law which may arise before them, many of which may be res integra and previously undecided by any superior court. (OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY)
The bench added that the a Trial Court is well within its authority to decide all such issues and can even be the first judicial authority to take a view on a subject.
Facts of the case
A plea was dismissed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge rejecting the petitioner’s request to adjourn the matter till the Division Bench of High Court adjudicated on the questions of law referred to it by a Single Judge in a batch of Rent Control Revision Petitions. The petitioner's argument was that where a precedent on the question of law exists, the Trial Court can go ahead and adjudicate on the matter before it, following the said precedent. It was argued that even if the said precedent has been referred to a larger Bench, there is no embargo on the Trial Court deciding the matter, for the simple reason that there exists a precedent of the High Court which it can follow.
Furthermore they submitted that where there is no prior precedent on the question of law, in the form of a decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court, the Trial Court cannot adjudicate on the matter, especially where the precise question of law stands referred to a Division Bench of the High Court.
Court's observations and Judgment
The Court noted that the petitioner was "harbouring a serious misconception of law" which is that District Courts are competent only to decide questions of law for which "prior authoritative precedents in the form of decisions of High Courts or the Supreme Court exist."
The court said, “There is no principle of law which requires the existence of a prior judicial precedent on a question of law before a ld. Trial Court takes a view on the said issue. If there is any binding judicial precedent, of course, the ld. Trial Court would be bound to follow it unless the ld. Trial Court deems the precedent to be distinguishable for reasons which it would be required to elucidate. As such, even if the precise question of law that arises before the ld. Trial Court stands referred to the Division Bench of this Court, there is no embargo whatsoever on the learned Pr. DSJ taking a view on the issue.”
The bench disposing of the application remarked, "Expeditious disposal of proceedings, especially before the learned District Courts, has become a pressing necessity in today’s day and age. Arrears are clogging the Courts and if matters are to be adjourned sine die merely because the question of law involved therein is not guided by any earlier precedent and stands referred by a higher forum to a Division Bench or even to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, it would become impossible for the District Judiciary to decide matters before it."
Read Judgment @LAtestlaws.com
Picture Source :
