Each profession comes with its own jargon. If you’re not a part of that particular profession, it may all go over your head. But what happens when these words can’t even be comprehended by others in the same profession?
The Supreme Court recently set aside a verdict by the Himachal High Court on a tenant-landlord dispute case. Why? Because the language in the verdict left the judges scratching their heads, The Tribune reported.
Don’t believe it? Here are some excerpts from said judgement:
“However, the learned counsel...cannot derive the fullest succour from the aforesaid acquiesence... given its sinew suffering partial dissipation from an imminent display occurring in the impunged pronouncement hereat wherewithin unravelments are held qua the rendition recorded by the learned Rent Controller...”
Here’s another one:
The defendants’ omitted to assail the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced vis-à-vis the plaintiffs by theirs carrying an appeal therefrom before the learned first Appellate Court. Consequently the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pronounced by the learned trial Court attained finality besides conclusivity.
There’s more:
For facilitating its consummation,though the learned executing Court stood enjoined to pronounce an appropriate order, contrarily it by relegating the impact of the aforesaid germane factum probandum comprised in the enforceable executable conclusive decree, has inaptly dismissed the execution petition.
The bench of justices MB Lokur and Deepak Gupta decided to set the verdict aside. The bench was quoted as saying:
We will have to set it aside because one cannot understand this.
According to the report, the case dates back to November 1999, when a landlord filed a case against his tenant over non-payment of rent. Here is a copy of the verdict.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)