Judicial workload staggering, not fair to expect judges to spend too much time, energy in proofreading: Madras High Court – Bar & Bench – Indian Legal News

When the matter came up for final hearing, the High Court noted that the aforesaid questions do not covey any meaning.

“It does not make any sense at all,” the Court said.

The High Court also proceeded to explain the reasons for the same as follows:

“Though Section 100 (4) of CPC states that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question, what mostly happens in practice is not in strict consonance with the statutory mandate. Since Section 100(3) of CPC states that the appeal memorandum shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal, once the Judge is satisfied that a case has been made out for admitting the second appeal, instead of independently formulating the substantial question of law arising in the appeal, instruction is given to the stenographer to copy down certain particular grounds from the appeal memorandum. If the counsel’s formulation is flawed and defective, the Court record also carries the same vice.”