 CLC and ULS Punjabi Minister Chandigarh. Invite you to a session which is more like an interactive session. It's not the normal way where we have been holding the webinars. Today we are pleased to announce that we have amongst us three honorable judges and two from the Delhi High Court and one from Bombay High Court. Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahe and Law Justice Rajiv Sahe and Law. Honourable Mr. Justice Vibhu Bhakru and Honourable Mr. Justice Dhamma Shishadri Naidu. And those who have been following up these webinars, they know that Honourable Mr. Justice Dhamma Shishadri Naidu has already given us the insights on two different aspects that is common law, principles and precedents and advocacy tools and skills. And Justice Rajiv Sahe and Law not only has given various insights on different platforms and be that as it may, while as a judge if one goes to his court as well as before the court of Justice Vibhu Bhakru. There are insights which one learns, but there are certain issues which crop up normally in the mind of a lawyer. What is the procedure to be followed? The entire procedure, the entire advocacy, whether the procedural law is a master or a servant, what are the changes, what are the challenges? So on behalf of John Law CLC and ULS Punjab University Chandigarh, when we approached them, it was decided commonly that these are the issues which are required especially given during these testing times. And since it was realized that there are certain questions which ordinarily the students, the professors, the lawyers are having within their minds, but they do not get the right direction in that regard. So amongst us, as I said, we have three speakers giving their perspective in a different way. We will not be taking, I'm not taking much time of introduction because I would be very candid enough on that point that since they are three speakers giving different insights and there are a large number of questions which are likely to be cropped up. So we are giving, we are around having 30 minutes of the introduction and then we will have the question asked. It can be posted in the chat box. I will ask on Mr. Justice Rajiv Sai and Law to take over the entire answer. I think Justin Bhakru has joined and probably he's not joined by the name. I can unmute everyone and thereafter we'll mute everyone and we will again unmute Justice Rajiv Sai and Law. Just to just say it and we can see by what name you have entered. Justice Bhakru. I think my team is showing DHC. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is what we were trying to see. We will change the name. So over to Justice Rajiv Sai and Law to give his insights and there are then just as Vibhu Bhakru and then just as Tamashishaj Rina too. So that the insights what are given by them, we are able to hear it. Otherwise, there is an audibility problem. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, Justice Bhakru. Good evening, Justice Nishadri. Good evening, brother. Mr. Chetra, I think when we discuss the topic, I understood it as a procedure relating to civil matters. But I don't think it has reflected in the title which has been chosen. In any case, I am competent to speak only on the procedure regarding civil matters. I am not even competent. I don't claim to be competent to speak about a procedure relating to criminal matters. So what I intend to place before everybody is and particularly in civil matters about civil suits. Now, let me take back, all of you back to late 17th and early 18th when I had joined the law faculty. Now, the professor, the good professor who was teaching us CPC in the very first semester, in the very first class, he committed the mistake of telling us, all of you must have heard that oft repeated sentence that procedure is the handmaiden of justice. And I think he couldn't have done a bigger mistake. Most of us stopped attending classes or even when we were attending. We were not paying much attention because we thought that, oh, this is like something which is not relevant. And the emphasis had to be on the substantive law. So while we were very active in the substantive law classes, putting questions to the teachers, at least now that none of us paid much attention to the CPC class. And I'm sure that some generations before us and several generations after us, this trend must have continued. And then when I entered the courts in the very first few days, I learned the phrase in the interest of justice. So whenever the judge say, you haven't done this, you haven't done this, you are not in compliance with this provision of CPC or any other procedural law, the easiest sentence was my lord in the interest of justice. Now, this continued for a very long time. And again, I'm saying that I'm qualifying that maybe it may continue in other civil jurisdictions because civil jurisdictions are not only civil suits, but civil reputations, labor disputes, they may cover land reforms. So in all those family courts there, it may still be good. But what has happened over the years, I'm going to the history from 1982 till say about 1999-2002. This sentence, that procedure is the handmaiden of justice and the excessive jurisdiction which the Indian courts are known to exercise. I think all of us must be aware that the statistics show that the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts in India is more than the exercise of jurisdiction and exercise of discretion in any other jurisdiction. So every judge was molding the procedure in spite of the existence of CPC as per his or her sense of justice. And that had the natural consequence which was bound to follow that the procedure, the handmaiden became instead of for the advancement of justice, it started eroding justice. See, I'm talking of that era when I myself as a counsel for the defendant, we have taken 3-4 years to file the written statement where the interest of the client suited. So there were a team number of applications for amendment. A lot of times full pleadings were not being engaged with their full knowledge at amendment. Later on will be allowed and will take at least 2-3 years. Sir, I'm sorry to bother you. Could you just come slightly forward though it's audible for me, but people are writing on the chat box that they are not... All right, yeah. So there were delays not only in completion of pleadings, there were delays even in this thing amendments, additional evidence. So at each and every state and to give you an example of the field in which I practiced most the landlord and tenant, a bona fide requirement case would take 15 to 20 years to decide and by which time the original cause of action had disappeared in the 15 to 20 years, the entire circumstance of the family changes. So it really became a killer of substantive justice instead of advancement of justice. And let me at this stage diagnose and say that after all my procedure was brought about in law. See it is not as if before the courts, the formal courts were constituted. There were no justice delivery system. There was a justice delivery system earlier also. The only difference was it was not guided by procedure as the number of disputes grew and there were more and more cases being brought earlier before the king who used to render justice then to his nominees over entering justice. They started feeling the need for a formal procedure for dispensing justice so that there was some amount of certainty of how one is to proceed about it. And it was meant to expedite the rendering of justice not intended to delay. So not only did the exercise of discretion and by leading the procedure for the sake of substantial justice, not only did it erode justice, it caused delays which was also counterproductive. So we saw the backlash which happened in 2002. It started with 1999 when the amendments to the CPC. Some amendments were brought and finally more amendments. So restrictions were put on the time for completion of cleanings, on amendments, on additional evidence. All these provisions were intended to be taken away. Now that again didn't serve the purpose because you know that sentence was so strong though it was coined way back in 1900s by some law professor and that quoted from him by Justice Vishnaya and the Indian context but you'll be surprised to know that he had said it in the context of a criminal matter but it kind of pervaded all systems of justice delivery. It was transported to civil law also when ideally one should have been guided by procedure. So when 2002 amendment came, the courts were so used to and made enough justice that they again said that all these provisions are directly not mandated. Now ultimately that has resulted in what you have seen as the commercial courts act in 2015 and what a large number of high courts have made rules. Now those rules have taken away the discretion. They have started for fitting the rights if they are not exercised in accordance with the procedure. So to that extent there has been a change and today the procedure in certain parts of a civil trial is no longer in the hand of the judge. If you don't comply with the procedure you forfeit your right and you have to suffer adverse consequences. There is no discretion up to the Supreme Court stage only which may imply the size of its powers may 141 bars may say that all right we are to like this not withstanding there being no fault. So today if since the topic has been posed like a question the answer would be it is no longer a servant for a large section of the I would say crucial section of a civil trial but it is a mistress and so it is a master but for some sections it still remains a servant but my caution would be that everybody has to be very very cautious in exercising and using it as a handmaiden of justice in the areas of CPC or the procedure where discretion is still given because if we continue to exercise discretion in a very wide way to overlook the violations of procedure ultimately that power also will go because the legislature will come and they take away that power. Now if you look at it from another point of view just take a couple of more minutes that what is the difference like what is the importance of procedure what is the difference between the litigant and a lawyer. A litigant knows the facts of his case and the logic behind this claim to being right better than any lawyer he can engage but why we still have the legal profession is because the litigant does not know the procedure it is very important for the lawyer to know his procedure as well as to know his substantive law because otherwise if the lawyer doesn't know his procedure there are whole reasons for his presence in a court or during the trial would be defeated and the judges might as well listen to the litigant. Now having placed my view I would also like to place before you perspective from the youngsters it's very interesting so I thought I'll share with you I have two youngsters in the family who are also in the field of law so when I asked them the answer of one of them of course was nearly of the same that it is an independent on the situation or the facts that what will happen but the other answer was very interesting the other answer was it depends upon who the judge is so having said everything I think a large part of it also varies from judge to judge there are some judges who are going to exercise their discretion some who are not going to exercise their discretion so from the lawyer's point of view it is important to know the law saying that it is a mistress to defeat violations of the opponent and from the judge's point of view also it is very important to know that use it as a mistress to control the excessive time or the malefiting game being played by one of the against the litigation. Thank you. We will call upon Honorable Mr. Justice Revu Bhakru to give the insights then adjusted the Dhammasheesh Aathuri so that we have already posted on the we have already announced that few questions can be taken up since primarily as you have rightly said that as to whether it's a master or a servant is the issue and as to whether what is the discretion all these insights especially the lawyers would definitely like to know because this is an art and nuances which one learns with the flux of time and especially once you learn it from the persons who are on the other side and they are giving the insights how to go about it I request Honorable Mr. Justice Revu Bhakru. Thank you. Well, I'm glad you're hearing Justice Rajeev. He rightly pointed out that this expression that procedure is a handmaiden of justice and not a mistress has been repeated so often and it is right from probably is college days and but if you look at the decisions that are rendered by the courts it I mean the earliest that I could find was in 60s from from the Supreme Court but obviously this is paraphrasing of a phrase that is about over a century old but I think that when you look at a phrase like this and the momentum that it is gained over periods of time because it's repeated and repeated again then we lose sight of the context in which this phrase actually was coined in so it may be a little profitable to look at some of the courts of some decisions so one of the things that one of the courts said I could I would like to mention it is which which had put this same proposition is somewhere in down five this is the case of Kailash versus Nanku and here the Supreme Court said that all the rules of procedure are handmade of justice. The language employed by draftsmen of processional law may be liberal or stringent but the fact remains that the object of prescribing the procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system no partition not nearly be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation unless compared by express and specific language of the statute the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet the extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. So therefore if you if I just understand the nuances of this first and foremost is that it should serve the ends of justice. In other words your procedure must not constrain you to an extent that you can't dispense justice. So when you look at the problem that which are now which is now a reason that is the endemic delays and this explosion that happens because delay in itself is a cause for people to file. Why would you not file and get an interim order and take it for 20 years with really no fear of losing even if you lose and take advantage of the time that is that that litigation in this country takes. The resultant the results that comes out is that the ends of justice do get defeated. So therefore whether the procedure is is really is to be taken as sacrosanct in certain cases or whether it should be it should it can be departed from is all depends on whether what really is the ends of justice and how it would be how it would be served. Different courts over the period of time have expounded this proposition in different words but let's see the ramifications of this. I think the first and foremost implication of this is it's felt when the laws are prospective or retrospective. So lately when a procedure procedural law is amended and it is amended to address a particular situation that is the reason. The general principle that the law is not is not retrospective and there is a wasted right that is accrued to a little bit to follow a particular procedure is not accepted. So the general rule that pops up is that if there is a change in law regarding procedure because it's a handmade in a justice and it's really handmade of just made of justice and because it's really to subserve justice and then it really does not give any wasted right in any litigant to say no please follow the procedure that was in existence prior to a statutory amendment. So this is one of the areas where this this plays out and and I think this was placed much earlier in about a century earlier where they said that no person has a wasted right in the course of procedure. He has only the right to prosecution or defense in a manner for the time being by or for the court in the case which is pending. So this principle which was about almost a century old now plays out in in this aspect. Just another another curious thing while justice and Lo is addressing and giving a speech. I had a quick look at indiakanun.com on the most recent judgments where handmade in a justice has been repeated and you will be surprised that there are nine supreme court judgments that have followed that have mentioned this phrase either in their language or courted picked up a court from another judgment. You have a case here is the first of March 2019. I'm only taking a year where is a case of Varun Pawan versus Renu Chaudhary. Here a person did not impede a particular party. So the member of parties one he moved an application to amending the member of parties in the fag end after really the arguments have been heard and supreme court high court didn't allow it but the supreme court said the rules of procedure are handmade of justice and cannot defeat substantive rights of the parties and it is obvious in the plane that he would have meant to impede this particular party and therefore this amendment was allowed. You have another case which is the recent one of the most recent case in arbitration. National agriculture versus Nafiq versus elemental justice Arun Mishra. He of course was considering a question whether a person was an arbitrator in an appellate proceedings act as a council. There again this principle was trotted. Then there is a this was in as recent as 22nd April 2020. Around 19th March 2020 that is three days ago in the supreme court while considering whether additional material would be examined in the context of disqualification of Mr. Sharad Yadav from legislative assembly on the count of pension. Again said well you can bring additional evidence. I quoted rejected placing additional evidence on the ground that disqualification must be viewed from the perspective of the date when he was disqualified. But again the supreme court said the procedure is handmade of justice. Same phrase again repeated and then that application the decision of the high court was set aside and additional evidence is allowed to be produced. Then you have indoor development which we all know this came in 6th March 2019 to 2020. Again this passage has been used. Then you have new India assurance company. This was done in this is on 4th March 2020 so we are only in April and March is yet and this again this phrase is used in in this case this is in context of the consumer protection act. Then you have a pioneer urban land and another versus unit of India. This is on 9th August 2019. This is in the challenge of the IBC amendments to include real estate allotments as financial creditors instead of operational creditors. Here again they have said that procedure is a handmade of justice so even even real persons who have lottees of flats can be considered in IBC proceedings as financial creditors. You have another case of Hebride and Yalapa Hussmani. This is on 9th May 2019. This is on a bit of a particular suit while another suit cross suit was pending. Here again the court invoked the same principle. You have on 7th May 2019 a case called State by Inspector of Police versus Subramanyam. This is on the context where this is in criminal law where an inspector did not produce his authorization yet continued. He is a CBI inspector and he had continued to prosecute and by the time the matter came the court held that since you have no authorization you would allow you to read evidence on that now. But the Supreme Court said no this is just again procedural and therefore procedure would be applicable. Then it's just a same phrase used again. This phrase is again used in JK Jutmil Mazdoot. This is on 30th April 2019 whether this is again in the context of IBC on the question whether a trade union is an operational creditor. They said well they could be members of the unions who would be operational creditors so why not allow the trade union also to be an operational creditor. Again the same principle is used. And you have on 9th April 2019 Food Cooperation of India versus RIMGEN. That is this was a recruitment case relating to recruitment. A person had applied to Food Cooperation for being appointed. She did not put up proof of diploma which was required in the advertisement. Advertisement required her to produce a proof of diploma. She had a diploma but she didn't file it and she didn't put it in an application. The High Court said well she's forgotten to do so so please overlook and allow that because ultimately it's only a matter of procedure that she should have done so. The Supreme Court availed that decision and again used the same phrase around the industry. So I do not these are just this is not this is only Supreme Court and this is only in the last 12 months. So one hasn't gone very far behind and this is not to mention how many High Courts would have used the same phrase again. So literally this phrase has got a momentum that is now really unstoppable and wherever the courts do need that they should be they're required to do to act in a particular manner. This is the principle that really comes to the day and this is procedure across boards it is in criminal law as well in civil law these cases span both. So it's not just civil proceedings. Now much of this is this this word is actually an attribute to Justice Krishna that he picked it up from another case. The case in reference was actually the other way. He had put a question by saying in that particular case was a case where because of the inability of the state government to to challenge a degree where compensation was what it was a land acquisition matter compensation was awarded to a person whose lands had been taken away. In he got some 75 rupees compensation he applied for enhancement which became 200. The government applied for a review before the additional district judge this was in at the stage of reference and that review was allowed and that decision to grant 75 rupees was actually 200 rupees was set aside and put as 75 against it the land owner when came to the High Court the so did the cross appeal got filed by the state. However the state did not challenge the order where whereby it was initially made at 200. It only challenged the order where it was reduced from 200 to 75 they wanted further reduction. In that the High Court said that the review which was filed by the state government was not maintainable. If the review before the ATJ was not maintainable then that decision of the ATJ to reduce it from rupees 200 to 75 was not should not have been passed. If that decision went then the compensation was 200 rupees. Now the question arose before the Supreme Court was that would the state still a sale compensation of what compensation of 200? Whether the Supreme Court said no because that original decision which which the state proceeded on the basis had merged with the review petition or review order was not challenged. So the Supreme Court said that we do not because the state has not challenged it although it may have ground to secret reduction of the compensation because they're not challenged they've missed the bus and we will not allow it. So this wasn't actually a reverse case where they said yes compensation should have been reduced the additional district judge was wrong in awarding a higher compensation. Yet they denied the state government's claim assertion on the ground that they missed the bus and therefore this is not although this phrase does it has been Justice Krishna Iyer coined this this law in his usual felicity of language that he enjoyed that he commanded but it was on the reverse but it was on the reverse proposition. In this context Justice Krishna Iyer gave a concurring opinion and I like to read his concurring one passage is from his concurring opinion and this is what he said the processual law sort dominates in certain systems as to overpass substantive rights and the humanist rule that procedure should be the handmade not the mysteries of legal justice compels consideration of wasting a residue the power in judges to act ex debito justice a where tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly iniquitable in the present case almost every step a reasonable litigant could take was taken by the state to challenge the extraordinary increase in the rate of compensation awarded by the civil court and by hindsight one finds that the very success in the review application at the appellate stage has proved a disaster to the party maybe the government might have successfully attacked the increase awarded in appeal producing additional evidence there but maybes have no place in the merciless consequence of vital procedural flaws parliament I hope will consider the wisdom of making the judge the ultimate guardian of justice by a comprehensive though guardedly worded provision where the hindrance to the rightful relief relates to informities even serious sounding in precision law justice is the goal of jurisprudence processual as well as much as substantive while this appeal has as to be allowed for reasons set out impeccably by my learning brother I must sound a pessimistic note that it is too critical for a legal system to sacrifice the end product of equity and good conscience at the altar of processional consciousness and it is not too radical to word breakdown of obvious justice by bending sharply if the prescriptions of procedure the wages of procedural sin should never be the death of rights very powerful words and therefore but but the context in which they were said was that we must if there is a procedure prescribed it must be followed now this all this said about this particular principle of handmade justice there is a there's a country a somewhat a country principle that is also trotted with equal ferocities and this is again an age old principle comes from Nazir Ahmed 1936 Privy council which says if things that if the statute prescribes the manner in which things should be done then it must be done in that manner or not at all this is quite the one that you look at it quite opposing by saying quite the opposite by saying was that procedure is the handmade of justice because then it says it's a statute whether it's procedure or substantive prescribes the manner of doing a particular thing which would obviously actually be more procedural then you can't do it in any other manner but as prescribed and this has been this principle has been applied also I would imagine equal number of times as the oft repeated expression which is that the procedure is the handmade of justice this is one of the most recent judgments that this principle was done was in the context of whether the I court put direct registration of an FIR and investigation in case of in case of a particular lit complainant were not exhausted is alternate remedies so even in case where alternate the court said even in case where you have an alternate remedy of proceedings under 156 three of the CRPC you have to first exhaust that procedure but you cannot take the first two article 226 following an earlier decision in Sakari Vasu but they mentioned again the same principle of Nazir M when Ahmed Vasu's emperor makes a decision so this is now the other side of the coin where you may have you may have substantially followed a reasonable procedure but then it may be thwarted on the ground it was not done in the manner in which supposed to be done so really where does the line lie what exactly should be how should you consider a procedure not should you consider it as sacrosan or should you consider it as something that you can go away with and I think the answer really rise not really looking at these two oft repeated the propositions because none of the these two propositions hold true and almost all circumstances although they they have a momentum and which which which like I said I think the answer really is to look at the provision and answer and ask the question is it mandatory or is it directly in in suits in commercial suits now obviously the timelines are have to be real in proceedings such as civil rights really there is everything is available to a court you can you can at any given point of time after you've concluded hearing still ask the parties to on any question to address it because the jurisdiction is totally different it is a very proactive jurisdiction therefore I would I would be hard-pressed to imagine that in a jurisdiction like 226 you can non-suit a little bit by saying you have not followed the procedure or you've not you've not you've not filed a petition in a particular manner as you know Justice Bhagwati had accepted letters, postal letters as reputations without any any sense of formality at all so that's another jurisdiction you have other jurisdiction like arbitral proceedings now arbitral proceedings upon an arbitrator there is no procedure really applies it is evolved by either the rules of institution or by the arbitrator when arbitration proceedings come to court that is court proceedings arising to arbitration then again there is a there is a very strict restraint that the courts have been put to because the statute says that you can't interfere except in limited circumstances and there again the procedure you may have a little clear but the timelines the manner the grounds on which a litigant can approach are very very very strict so that's a different jurisdiction so really this this must be viewed in in which which procedure regarding which jurisdiction are you if you're if you're if you address is it is it the requirement of the jurisdiction that then there should be flexibility then obviously procedural rules can be bended to the convenience of this of the problem this is as far as the jurisdiction is concerned the problem with the procedure in the another way to address is is to really look at it whether a particular rule is mandatory or not and I think this is apart from first and foremost question that must be answered we address this is what was a tension of the legislation so the wording of the statute become quite important the language of the section becomes quite important then you have to see whether there are any consequences of prescribed if there's a penal consequences for not following a particular process then surely that must be considered as mandatory what is the what is the mischief that it seeks to address what is the purpose of that legislation it must it must be examined and then one can find whether the procedure is to be given and or must be considered as strict or sense or or whether you can depart from the same and substantial compliance should be accepted but these are the these are the principles that I think need to be looked into and therefore really following these adages handmade of and made in a justice or things must be done in a particular manner or not at all I just brought principles that guide thoughts all those thoughts have to be really really translated in again as depends on the facts of the situation depends on the procedure that you are looking into I recollect or find a judgment of the full bench of the Punjab Narayana High Court in Punjab Finance Corporation the interesting case it was a tax case where the assessor had not filed an audit report along with his return which was necessary for him to get an exemption so the court then looked in the provision and said yes the law that the division bench of the Punjab Narayana High Court had held that that would be fatal to the assesses claim but the at the full pension well it has two components not conducting an audit would be fatal to the assesses claim but not filing the report then would not be so so therefore they bought in the same section both mandatory and and direct green principles another case that is well known is about the usual requirement in civil service law inform an employee regarding his grading if his grades within a particular period now within a particular period one can digress from but the requirement that you must inform him for making a representation is mandatory so procedure may have different aspects and some of them may be you may be considered non-derogable while the others can be derogable I think that that would be a correct view to answer this approach this issue whether it's a master or a servant in some cases it will definitely be a master and in some cases it will definitely be a servant thank you thank you sir the insights as you said rightly said that Justice Krishna Iyer judgment we all remember that the judgment of Dali Chandra and these judgments as to when it is to be used as a to deny a claim or whether it can be not the claim can be more the claim can be more in terms of the prayer the Dali Chandra's judgment is very relevant and the another issue which you have rightly pinpointed that in certain cases it has the issue is always decided that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done and in that eventuality by molding the relief to any other direction or any other prayer the relief is always molded the judgments which we have given though it looks like a bird eye view but it shows the amount of effort one person before actually addressing it is the same way which a lesson to be well taken by the professionals that as to as and when they have to go for any particular submissions to be made though during the course of this entire session we will also go as to what should be the style of submissions and the drafting etc amongst us we have justice Dhamma Shashedri Naidu we will take the question and answer but before that we will ask honorable Mr. Justice Dhamma Shashedri Naidu to give his insights on this particular aspect. Thank you brother Justice Sahay and brother Justice Bhakru as Vikas has said in his prefatory statement that I've appeared already one too many times even for the comfort of the members that have been viewing across the spectrum but I can't help it because Vikas pleads persists and eventually prevails on me and I couldn't say no so you may have to endure me for as short a while before we'll go for the question and answer session transfer our benefit the honorable judges who have spoken until now have already well articulated the procedural parameters of judicial adjudication they have indeed underlined and highlighted its importance without of course overemphasizing on its role in justice dispensation as it were I'm afraid whatever I say now will inevitably echo what has already been said and I'm tossed to speak a few words on the topic but the distinguished speakers have already done that though you may all recollect that in 1980s a prime minister of this country was assassinated then there was a trial of course it was in the context of a criminal trial then BBC was extensively covering this incident and the judicial progress of the case mock tally was the correspondent tally now settled in India he was born in India and for many decades carried on the reporting news from India every time he would say about the trial aspect he would say the prime minister of that country was assassinated in the broad daylight but as the Indian system is known for its notoriety for the delays the trial has been going on for many many years there's a constant refrain in BBC by mock tally that I believe underlines the very purpose of procedural law in suffix for writing perhaps become an impediment we all agree about the taxoning of law what is division classification whatever name you call that law is either substantive or adjectival or procedural isn't it too obvious to be stressed that substantive law deals with the rights and the procedural law with their energies that is the substantive law is a source of our rights and the procedural law is the means to realize those rights some call the procedural law the law of actions because it governs or determines the process of litigation it's the vehicle of justice let me put it that way within analogy justice is like a perishable product the litigant is the consumer the courts are the transporters of their justice they always try to transport this perishable justice to the litigant consumer as early as possible and as fresh as possible so how fast the courts daily by the justice depends on the swiftness of the vehicle of transport that is the procedural law but you find wheels within wheels that's the problem over time the courts have devised and developed various procedural regimes or mechanisms and the courts aim was and has always been twofold to be fair and to be fast but the courts became conscious that one cannot be at the expense of the other so an element of caution was introduced down the line that table of caution on the path of justice has become an obstructive mountain almost what's wrong and what's right is a matter of substantive law what we need to prove that right or wrong is a matter of procedural law in a sense if we go by summoned any jurisprudence it says what lies outside the court is substantive law what lies inside the court is procedural law every branch as you know of knowledge has exceptions law is a branch of knowledge and it has more exceptions than one could expect or for anybody's comfort so whatever I've said has its own limitations for example the entire evidence act is not procedural it's partly procedural and partly substantive please remember there's no watertight compartmentalization or division between what is substantive and what is procedural if you are practiced or still practicing in any trial court you file an application for whatever relief you wanted to as a matter of an interlocutory stage and the registry will put under what provision and we always have the firm believe that to have any particular application for any sort of relief to be maintained there ought to be some sort of a legislative imprimatur or sort of a judicial sanctioned by a president but if I could quote one very good those short judgment from Supreme Court that is Rajendra Prasad Gupta versus Prakash Chandra Mishra that was in 2011 that it's been said very aptly I reckon that if you wanted to have a substantive right perhaps it needs a statutory conferment but when it comes to procedure so long as there's no bar it doesn't require any particular provision at all and today we'll be dealing with as you've already come to know essentially the civil procedure and you have seen the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla of our High Court Bombay High Court has once said what a piece of legislation is CPC the more you read the more you feel like knowing about it and I need not repeat as my landed brothers have just told about the catchphrases about the maiden of justice beginning from Vivienne Bowles and taking from English jurisprudence it's become almost an aphorism so I need not repeat friends I believe that we'd better spend more time on elucidating the topic by we have the questions and then whatever the doubts that may arise could be elucidated so I believe it's all to us who could be taking care of things thank you the point well hammered that that the justice cannot be in a watertight compartment compartmentalization you have to consider the entire facts issues what is discretionary and what is mandatory meanwhile the questions are being coming on the chat this chat box also but I have also a few questions on the whatsapp since on the invite we had posted that the questions could be posted what are the worst practices which have developed in contemporary times as regarding prosecuting a civil claim in court and what should be done by the advocates to avoid the same so just to the end of show I will just Yes sir See our council who is interested in delaying the matter or who feels that it is for the benefit of his client to delay I will use every rule in the city to delay now what the criteria which I can speak from my experience what I have been applying is that if one feels on the very first day that an application which has been filed or replied to an application which has been filed is just for the purposes of delay then the attempt is to nix it in the bud but coming to your question that what are the worst practices I have already said before the 2002 amendment it was a teacher in many states to delay the filing of the written statement or the application as the case may be there after to not find documents they contain the adjournments for that then for framing of issues there was a time when the cases used to remain pending for a couple of years for framing of issues then amendment of the issues so you can use every then after that discovery even when the discovery would not have served any purpose so you open the CPC and you start filing one application up other till you have reached a rule 2425 and in the meanwhile death used to take place then substitution not substituting all the errors in one goal making successive applications so you don't really need much ingenuity for coming up with worst practices the good practices are to be able to see a lot of times what happens is that the delays occur in spite of this previous because the council when he appears first is not ready to oppose he is not he comes to the court thinking only that it's for this application I'll file a reply but if on the basis of the report which is already existing there is no need to file a reply and you are familiar with the facts or you have read the file the evening before then according to me there is no need the delay will not take place so the lawyer and plus of course to be always in the know of the judgments which permit the dispensation or the decision in one way so these are largely as the good and the bad practices thank you Mr. Chathrat has gone off here yes sir you would like to say anything on this no brother I think it's fairly covered the issue and you hit the issue on your side with an ale Mr. Chathrat I was moderating on your behalf thank you it is one of the rarest so if a revision petition is pending against an entire model in a civil suit is pending in a civil suit and before that the civil suit gets decided against the revision whether such interim orders can be challenged in a regular appeal before the court of district judge if not then whether the revision petition can be pressed on the ground that the appeal is a continuation of the suit therefore the same should be decided what is your take on that just as in regime as I would just say that in this in our case I kindly do not mute yourself then we have to unmute every time the practice we follow in Delhi is to transfer the revision petition to the same court where the appeal is pending so that both can be decided together or to dispose of the revision petition with liberty to us that ground and appeal and to if there is a need for amendment of the appeal then to grant leave for amending the appeal to take up that ground and also clarifying that the disposal but say you need that one but I make a mention of it because it can't survive for an independent judiciary it perishes they'll have a right to do that one so there as you said that you had an experience of three high courts I would say that once we came on this platform we said that we will have the insights from three judges from two different high courts and myself from Punjab but once you are there we can say that we will have the insights of four courts no with more courts with more exposure either you get knowledge or you get confused maybe they say that the lawyers can too many cooks spoil the broth but the judges will always give the better insights they have the most deeper knowledge so though it's a of the negotiable instrument act but yes I found that this question is somewhat can be used in the other aspects also it says in a negotiation in a negotiable instrument act matter where the complainant is deaf and dumb can the wife of the complainant give evidence on behalf of him under section 120 of the evidence does the word against has any importance against inside proceedings in the first place is it 120 or 126 could you kindly check and tell me it's 120 he's written I can just take it all right I can do that because if I've understood that correctly the question is in a complaint arising out of 138 the trial the trial is going on can the wife of the complainant be a competent witness right no he says that the husband is somehow deaf and dumb can the wife of the complainant give evidence on his behalf just like a power attorney what is your take on that I reckon when it comes to deaf and dumb there is a provision that an interpreter an interlocutor could be appointed who can read the signal signs and then assist the court so substituted by a fresh witness amounts to the witness by the the wife becomes the witness and she wouldn't be supplanting or substituting suppose somebody is deaf and dumb there'll be an expert with sign language he can as well understand put the question through the sign language get the answers and then explain that to the court that's how the shortcoming or disability has all come thank you sir justice Bakru would you like to give you a certain insight on this aspect well if you look at the evidence act they you have a specific provision like has been pointed out by justice and I do anything section 121 by a special order of a court can be compared to I think it's section 120 says that parties to a civil suit and their wives are husband husbands or a wife of a person under criminal trial in in all civil proceedings parties to the suit and husband or wife to any suit shall be a competent witness in criminal proceedings against any person the husband or the wife of such person respectively shall be a competent witness I mean one in a 138 case if there is a check comes in case bought against a person then there should be no issue for the wife to step into the box as far as the accused is concerned but here it seemed to be that if the your question was if the complainant is deaf and dumb for that for that the rest provisions made that you can have an expert will then give 119 would also help it 119 of the evidence act that's exactly what just this is a specific provision I think yes that's 119 for the participant I can read that 119 of the Indian evidence act a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible as by writing or by the science but such science must be written and the science made in the open court evidence for that given shall be deemed to be as a oral evidence yes indeed yes and if I can add one sentence you see when it comes to the wife being a competent witness in a case involving the husband and vice versa you know it all began with the concept under common law that wife and husband in the eye of law are one and the same like adana this one in the Hindu mythology that's why one cannot speak for the other even before English course course to take the lead it's in an evidence act which took the lead and said with this provision that they're competent later English law followed that yes sir you're giving clearly shows that when you were teaching in the judicial academies on the Hindu succession act why people were just latching upon because we have gone beyond as we say it's a beyond law that we are having the insights beyond what we have condemned it yes a particular questions the both justice and laws and justice bakur say childish says guidelines approach in have been approved in Bombay High Court Himachal High Court in Madhya Pradesh High Court however no such standardized guidelines have been issued in the Delhi High Court are is it likely to be taken up or what is that it's your choice it's whether it has to be answered no i i won't have any idea about it i'll just just back to you as an occasion we don't have we don't have these guidelines as yet right it's not really aware whether they're there in the process of no no i i also understand that once we are limiting to particular Siri Nivas Murgil sir can courts extend the limitation period by giving the procedure by using the phrase procedure is a handmade of justice or not i think that's as the limitation act itself provides a procedure for extending the limitation except where the power has been taken away so definitely but for instance in a suit because the law has not provided you can't use the phrase and condone the delay in the institution of the suit similarly under the operation act section 34 you cannot use that phrase and extend the time for filing so strictly speaking no it doesn't apply to the limitation act very true but you see there is another aspect your question is much wide it's much wider it's not necessarily in a suit or in in an orbital proceedings limitation is prescribed under several proceedings you could have a proceeding on an excise act under the income tax act the civil so the principle that i think this is angelo just said that you have to look for a bar if there is a bar then you cannot if there is no bar then obviously it can be expanded it all depends on what what what the procedure what the language of the legislation is i reckon yes i reckon in the context of procedural law limitation act presents a very peak in position and for the beneficiary it is procedural for the affected party it is substantive law this is one oddity of a limitation act and the second thing is if there is an extendable limitation it is discretionary once there is a cap it is substantive that's why court cannot exercise say 226 or whatever to extend and go beyond the statutory limitation it's a bar so point well taken but uh i would just like to add like we had this entire order of uh this of the honorable supreme court during this covid 19 that was extraordinary powers extended under article 142 wherein they said that the arbitration or the statutory where there could not be any condolation of lay that was according to me the only exception what i could gather where had been extended beyond where it could not have been extended the limitation may be extraordinary times call for extraordinary remedies not always though yes now and this situation is equivalent to the court being closed see the limitation act also provides for the limitation stopping to run if it is physically impossible to find so when it is physically impossible to find that power has been exercised within the ambit of the limitation act except for every in every case that application coming the supreme court has decided for every case which they are entitled to under the constitution so this is to continue the litigation in every case an application for condolation of delay rather than that the supreme court has said it is condoned sir mr punit malhotra dealing with the sufficient cause and condolation of delay and the limitation act and any other specific law sir you have no it says you have referred so many questions are just pouring in yes anuj bansal you have referred to a provision of cpc where all interim orders can be challenged and appealed could there be facilitation on that sir punit malhotra says what is the question sir uh punit malhotra says dealing with the sufficient cause in condolation of delay and the limitation act yes and any other specific law punit i will unmute you because at least i have not been able to gather your a question it says dealing with the sufficient cause in condolation of delay under limitation act and any other specific law so it's neither a question nor an answer i'm unmuting him meanwhile we will take a question of kumar raj why the summons don't serve upon the servant but if home for servant if the servant is available at the home then uh why that service on the servant cannot be affected directing it to anyone it's a open ended anybody can open open ended yes i don't you have the reports experience i think you are may have the advantage of having that question repeated brother sir the question is that let's assume there is a servant at home yes uh can it be said that the service is affected because as you all know that under order five it says the adult member at the home i can you know earlier before amendment i believe in 1976 it was any adult male member of the family then there was reeking of sexism so it was changed into any adult member of the family male has been removed now the question is whether a maid or a servant becomes a domestic help if you want to be politically correct amounts to a member of the family and the service well it depends essentially whether which end of the stick you hold if you want to be really liberal you may as well say that yes part of the household establishment start but family may not include adult member of the family right family may not include left to myself i don't think it is proper service because service is an essential feature of our day ultra bottom of notice so it needs a little bit of stricter interplay interpretation we can stretch it not to the point of snapping yes i am number one and i cannot be no service yes sir say if we see rule nine it says it includes the word agent also so if there is a household in which there is no member of the family available during the day time all the time when the servers ordinarily visit then whosoever is at home even if it is because you consider it from that point of view that all maid why there are only the summons all communications coming by post or by courier i received in that household through that person so he would come within the definition of agent and the court if none appeals in spite of the record showing that there is a service at that address proceeds against the defendant or the they would be nothing wrong in that procedure of course if the party comes later on ensures that all right all this was received but for x y z reason that person did not deliver the summons to the defendant there may be a case depending upon the facts otherwise the moment there is a report it is served the court is to resume delivery very true if we could treat the maid servant or whoever as the agent and employee it does apply so this is a one of the relevant questions which was posted on the website i can read rather i would like to have the insights from all the three judges how should the oral arguments be structured in today's day and age with large number of matters on the judges daily board and the attendant pressure how should this vary in terms of the nature of a case say petition challenging an award as opposed to addressing a final argument in a suit what do the judge looks at at this stage keeping in with the heavy topics justice and law should i repeat the question or it's fine no it's all right see i think it again is likely to vary from judge to judge for instance with me i always lay a lot of emphasis on verbal hearing and ideally i would not opt for written arguments except if in a particular case i feel the need and which is only in those cases which is a news field or a new subject which i may not be very immersed in with otherwise what one understands because they see the verbal hearing is always interactive so if something is not clear to the judge or if some argument is not appealing to the judge the judge can always put his doubt and get a innocent answer and which does not happen in the case of written arguments now as far as the present times are concerned we are doing the hearings like we are doing this session just now and it is fully serving the purpose it's not as if it's any different rather we feel that the counsels are also conscious and they are confining themselves only to what is relevant and see what happened in an open court when you are standing in front of 20 onlookers there is a certain amount of flamboyance in the counsels when you are sitting alone in your office and you are arguing to a camera so you tend to confine yourself to whatever is that flamboyance was because i think there is something on our feet we argue more seated on the chair we argue less what are the insights of just Baklu on this point that how to go I have always been a firm advocate of oral hearings being over 18 all over the world written briefs are submitted by parties they are if you get a written brief from anyone for example in the US you will see the quality is amazing because you have all the case now that you want to rely on it's precisely for people to know the lawyers they rely on their pre submission pre oral submission briefs more than anything else oral submissions in in as far as civil cases are concerned are actually almost like witness action so while witness is there your oral submissions are made there they have a very brief and they are dufted with the evidence which is being laid they rely heavily on pre hearing briefs if you look at european plots in for example if you look at Hungary no matter the supreme court that doesn't hold oral hearings at all it only accepts written briefs and if you find that there is some area where a higher debate is warranted then those on a specific application are put for oral hearings oral hearings these are the pre hearing brief i would i would i would if a system has to evolve i would say let's give the written word a little more a little more precedence and maybe take a take somewhat of a mixed approach i would i tend to prefer a written brief more than learnings and precisely for that learning oral hearings actually if you look at it it's very easy to get digress from the point and go all over the place if you have a guideline of your written submissions or written briefs and i i think it's more precise uh just as i do though we had the we were quite privileged that at least on this platform we had one of your sessions on uh arts of advocacy advocacy tools and this thing so i will repeat the question for your good self what is the role i'm taking a new question what is the role of precedence in today's time is it more of an enabler and a guarantee of stability as many see it it to be or with the massive growth of number of judgments does it represent a stifling influence and creativity in the arguments how can it be used more effectively by advocates to advance their cases so also to aid the judges for the better dispensation of justice yeah if i put it in the light of being the longer the question the shorter the answers must be anyway yes precedent it's our darling and it's our devil both and in common law countries there's no escape and peculiarity of say india is we sit in panels not n bank as for example your supreme court does so uniformity is very difficult be it a high court or the supreme court there are 16 benches means technically speaking we have got 16 supreme courts sometimes it's humanly quite natural that you may have diametrically opposite judgments because highly subject to law as it is on the same day so yes it is being a stabilizing factor sometimes it becomes a stifling factor not in the light of being again don't get offended if not for the council citing for the judge who has to interpret all these things bring some sort of uniformity a thread running through that one and saying that they have not been conflicting and coming and trying to find the ratio i've been telling in my class on the last occasion that we have not been shown what's meant by a precedent and we are not at sure i'm not at a great meaning when it comes to what's the ratio this is the ratio that binds if at all then the ratio means a pure question of law or it's an application of facts to law then they become case holding all these things are there yes it's a very prudent device a potent device it all depends on how the council could marshal the principle that have been culled out from the president and applied to the facts of his case is more of a skill whether it is stifling or enabling yes i have a question just so i also to give you the insights what is the role of president in today's time even otherwise not only restrict to today's time no just if nairo has summed it up very well i don't think see the question is based on the understanding misunderstanding of what is a precedent as just as nairo has said if we understand what is a precedent then this question doesn't arise because we have what is happening today if we are matching the color of the facts of one case with the color of the facts of another that is not what the precedent is the precedent is the ratio the same did i am not every judgment in which an earlier judgment is mentioned it is the basic judgment in which the pros and cons of a particular argument have been discussed and then with reason it has been stated why this is the principle of law only that constitutes a precedent that if we follow that strictly then this confusion doesn't happen just as bakru would you like to pitch in your expression on this i think this question has been answered more than more than sufficiently so it is more like a situation where there's a division bench or a full bench where they say it's i agree sir that is true what what is the difference between process of law and procedure established by law just i give a simple word of answer for that one lago maki l o g o m e c h y lago maki means playing with the words i thought it's a hindi word lago mati but piche mat lago lago means word machination means manipulation lago maki yes so we will just because we are touching 630 the what are the common bad law practices which have crept in as a result of the cpc now permitting an effort of it to be filed in lieu of examination of chief the worst thing is that i have seen effort of it's very of examination in chief which are humans which have judgments are next to them and it just doesn't make any sense and then there is cross examination on all that so it's it adds to the delay but since this provision is there and we are unable to give time for having examination in chief and court we have to go ahead with this provision just as bakro would like to give his insights on this yeah that is one of the the missing problem with the affidavits keep running into pages and pages and pages and by the time the person was examining the witnesses and comes to the end of it you wasted a lot of time that's one of the problems of having an affidavit having evidence examination if i may add what has happened is that the affidavits are no longer being drafted by lawyers the affidavits are being drafted by the stenographer in the office who historically converted into a affidavit so the plaint or the written statement is converted into affidavit just changing the third person to first person there are paragraphs about court phase there are paragraphs about territorial jurisdiction when there are no issues on that if i can add yes sir i believe a procedure as such is value neutral it's neither good nor bad it's like a knife the whole question is who holds it is it the surgeon or the butcher it all depends on that one and when it comes to chief examination if you read any book on out of advocacy they say that the most difficult part for a council is out of advocacy is chief examination you know what happens even for a client usually the court atmosphere is oppressive and quite intimidatory so once he gets into the box warms himself up facing his own client another council and then he uses out he'll be comfortable by the time cross examination comes now that isn't there straight away he's put into the box and cross examination the hostility begins firing straight away first thing second thing most of the times either the council as my brother has put it or the clerk would be drafting it and party is clueless about what's been there in it based on that there could be cross examination he frizzles out these are the practical difficulties but when it comes to time saving it's there and it'll remain there yes thank you sir but i'm just reminded that they say sometimes that's just a size said that large number of times it's cut based it's actually so happening that yes drafting could be by a senior council then at the part of not a designated senior but at the for an associate that you simply say converted into a examination in chief in that manner yes it has its own pedals but as things go so now at 6 30 we can take more questions but i think that we should go by the schedule but before we part as we had made a request we would just like since justice nidoo had already taken one of the sessions on art of advocacy and skills i would just require request justice sahai that if we could give his insights as a good lawyer how what he should the first stance what are the so that there's no procedural lapse or what he insights he should do how he should go about the research etc so that at least the drafting gets better the procedure the the client does not lose at least on the aspects of that certain issues are not there or he's not the client is not left to argue through his council that either the pleadings or the evidence should be read in terms of that order seven of the cpc or that the savior just acting like a god that any other order or direction would help him to say what is happening is that with with so much emphasis on moot courts the profession of law has come to be recognized as having a skill in speaking is that the art of listening has died down from the profession so the major problem today in the pleadings is that the councils themselves realize what their case is at the time of final arguments you'll find it in a big number of cases because what is happening is that when a client comes to the council the council doesn't listen to his problem he thinks the moment he says the first few words he thinks i know the rest and he stops listening he doesn't ask any question because you see the client will come and tell you only what he feels is relevant to that case the client will not tell you what he doesn't feel is relevant but with the study of law the lawyer knows that besides what he is saying this abc factor also which are relevant now unless the lawyer puts questions to him and hopes to the client the lawyer will never know so the first practice to be adopted is to be a careful listener and to ask the questions after knowledge of law of seeing which provision applies studying that provision what are the ingredients what are the basic minimum requirements without which you cannot succeed or you cannot have a possible defense so it has to be a full study at that time that not merely see a lawyer is not merely a drafts person what is happening is whatever the client tells that is put in the legal language and it is drafted there is no additional facts on the own so that's why when the written statement comes or the replication comes and those facts are there then you ask your client that is it so then the client says yes and then you tell the client that why did you not tell so he'll say you did not ask me that so a complete knowledge of facts of the case all the facts not only what the client tells but what you inquire from him a full knowledge of the law applicable to the case is very important and one practice I can share what I followed in the suits which I knew are going to have a long drive and which were very complex and because you know there is a complete draft so if you feel that you may forget why you have written a particular thing or why you have intentionally not written a particular thing I used to in those cases prepare a demo and put it on top of the file so that everything was the entire strategy of the case from the stage of drafting to the stage of final arguments was there so I think if these two things are followed there is no reason why there should be procedure of course has to be known you yeah I would say I just now said that the emphasis is too much on substantive law but procedure I would say is a given once a law degree is there a person is supposed to know the procedure because procedure is taught very well and there is nothing further to learn in the procedure than what is taught in the law colleges it's just learning of the skills so listening is my biggest request to everyone thank you just so would you like to I think always been said but one is just one thing I would like to add you know at least when we joined the profession it was very common for us to check with forms and presidents if you look at forms and presidents there are several publications have it you have you have a frame for a suit which is actually put in such a precise format that if you get if you have a suit and if you get a right form for it you will probably cover all aspects and apart from that presidents also gives you some of the leading decisions on the issues for example if you're doing a bank guarantee injunction if you wanted an injunction suit for bank guarantee form them I know Butterworth's form then president had exactly a suit for it that told you precisely that your only ground would be fraud and beshading the underlying contract and so on so so that because that the practice of looking at least from the president when you frame a suit may just help in rafting a better suit before asking just as I do to give his insights I'm probably recollecting because we have had so many webinars and I probably have the idea that probably just as I do said that when the client comes the mind also works like a Google that you have read more of the issues then instead of listening more to the client then the mind goes on the Google as to what judgment or what presidents would help him to sail through rather than noticing sometimes the fact the the lawyer in an anxiety to show demonstrate that he's actually knows the subject he will try to demonstrate that there's one judgment probably say you had spoken on that day while you were speaking on art of advocacy for the facilitation of the participants who have joined today or who have not watched our YouTube channel I would like that what are your takes on this particular aspect yes first as you said I've already covered the issue second in this full bench decision already two judges concurred I could not descend so I can come with my two brother judges the third one if I would like to add some spice to the whole issue let me put it this way and there is one law professor called Betty's you flower Betty's you flower any young advocate can Google Betty's you flower me a cj she gives a particular method called me a cj to draft any pleadings effectively that means m stands for madman a stands for architect c stands for carpenter and j stands for judge and it's a wonderful exposition anybody can read or brian a garner in his books in more than one book a face he has explained the concept on how to draft this is one thing the second thing totally unrelated to our field is one book written by atul gavande is a surgeon that book's name is checklist manifesto please young lawyers go through that you'll have valuable inputs in that one if you still feel and curious to hone your skills of drafting please read a book called point made by ross guberman and also keithy wants cleaning without tears i think they will take you to a very final aspect of having your skills improved thank you sir i would just add the number of books you have said the majority of the lawyers would say that since you have the entire cracks and you have just funneled it down let there be a time where we can have another insight from yourself because faithfully last time too i sent a list of the books that effort to this time too i'll just message to you so i have that uh i have that list of 21 books which you had uh referred in your last session of art of advocacy i will post that uh books yes but i'm quite sacrosan that the way you read the books by the time that last on the last occasion two weeks ago when you had came on this platform you had cited 21 books off the cuff you could say this book for this particular purpose i'm quite sacrosan that if i asked you maybe three four books more have been would have been added it would have been a quarter but with humility let me tell you i am incapable of doing anything else yes no i just wish that everybody could have that like jesus uh i was saying that the lawyers are now just not willing to listen i'm reminded that often we receive a message uh we receive a message that silent and listen are two words having the same spellings but it is only the placement what matters if you listen properly in a particular stage and you are silent at a particular stage i think that becomes a more better hallmark for a lawyer to do just ask just to the end law uh if the point which my lords have been trying to have a if that point at least i could have been conveyed to the participants that silent and listen are two integral parts to become a good lawyer so what is your take on this particular aspect yeah i think it's very uh opposite for cross examination because a lot of time one says that the own case is destroyed by excessive cross examination and more particularly so in the case of wills that even if the will has not been proved by the propounder the object by excessive cross examination proves the will so uh knowing when to be silent is a very very important thing and at times not so so often unchanged that happening in the during the hearings also that i i bring something which was uncalled for the cases are destroyed sir uh the time is uh about you over i'm just reminded the way you said that the art of examination and cross examination is important i thought that we were talking through a very topic which is quite sometimes as a young lawyer or any other lawyer it looks very good to listen i'm just reminded of the examination and how the lawyer can be done just parting joke i'm reminded it is said that a person was involved in a tough case and he was about to be convicted so his lawyer told that whenever any question is to be asked from you the cross examination you just say for so by the end of the evidence whenever the questions were asked he's whenever he was to be asked he said for and he was declared that he's not seen he yeah he's insane and he was acquitted so ultimately the lawyer says that you see i've got you acquitted kindly release my balance fees he then says for so sometimes the too much of tutoring also goes other way around so it was a nice session we have got great insights it was an experience of its own kind that the three judges coming and like we said that uh just as i do we will not say three we have three judges but insights from four courts that makes the entire session much much much engaging it was a session which everybody i feel who have been the participant here as well as on the facebook would actually challenge this entire session thank you sir but before we part this is a joy to express a vote of thanks and tomorrow instead of the normal routine of the session which we are taking at five o'clock tomorrow we have a session by justice Ram Kumar a former judge of the kerala high court uh i will just read the topic before so joy takes over so joy you can uh formally say then i will just in the topic for tomorrow yes joy lot ships it has been a very enchanting sunday evening and we all woke up from our naps to join this session thank you very much for spending your valuable time procedure is a handmade of justice and that now we have got an ingredient in our minds but what lord denning said was that once the right uh to a certain fact or an exemption is available then you all you have to iron out the crisis so that is one more thing that he said and therefore sometimes say is it audible no it's gone offline so probably he uh he got too much uh this thing that one should also remain silent i will take a cue from where kanta was was saying so it was a session which we all enjoyed the inputs received today would be i am quite sure that will be embedded in the minds of everyone for not only for today but for all times to come during the lockdown time we could not have got a better session where the memories will be locked with the inputs and insights given by your good self all three of you would be cherished as a good food during this session and for all times to come food of knowledge thank you everyone and tomorrow's session by uh justice ram kumar is fundamentals of criminal trial he's a former judge of the kerala high court and he has been teaching in various judicial academies stay connected with us we will be posting in the various groups as well as on the facebook tomorrow it's 11 a.m so on behalf of beyond law clc and u l s punjabi university chandigarh i thank all three of you and amongst us uh we had justice uh moshmi bhatacharya uh i will just check as to whether she's there one one few moshmi we are unmuting everyone if she's on the platform uh ma'am you are unmuted because i had received a message that uh meanwhile uh sujoy kanta vala has written on behalf of beyond law clc and everyone thank you stay blessed stay healthy and enjoy the best of the knowledges during all these sessions till we actually work for in the normal course of the thank you thank you