The Delhi High Court has issued comprehensive practice directions to all district courts in the national capital to address procedural deficiencies identified in the manner in which lower courts record and reflect basic details in their judicial orders. A division bench of the High Court, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, observed that a recurring issue had been the absence of application numbers and adequate notations in orders passed by district judges on interlocutory and other applications filed during the pendency of cases. The bench noted that although all applications are duly numbered at the time of filing in district courts, this numbering was frequently not reflected in the resulting judicial orders, making it difficult to trace the particular application to which an order pertained for purposes of reference, challenge or appellate review. The High Court directed that each application filed in district courts must be registered at the time of filing and that the registration number should be reflected both in the cause list when the matter is to be considered by the court and subsequently in the orders passed on those applications. The court underscored that pleadings in applications must cite the relevant application number and that the orders dealing with those applications must also record the application number clearly so as to facilitate easy identification of the order with the underlying application in future proceedings. The bench stressed that adherence to these requirements would improve judicial clarity and assist appellate and revisional courts when examining decisions on interlocutory matters and miscellaneous filings.
In addition to ensuring the inclusion of application numbers, the High Court also directed that district court orders must explicitly reflect the appearance of parties or their counsel at the time the order is passed or, if no one appeared, a clear note to that effect should be included in the order. This provision was intended to ensure that judicial records accurately capture who was present before the court when decisions were made and to avoid confusion or disputes about representation. The High Court observed that clear recording of appearances is essential not only for transparency but also for verifying whether advocates or litigants were before the court and heard on the issues raised in the applications, thereby safeguarding procedural fairness and accountability in judicial proceedings.
The directions issued by the High Court were prompted by repeated instances where orders lacked these basic details, impairing the ability of higher courts and litigants to effectively trace and review interlocutory rulings. The bench acknowledged that district courts currently assign registration numbers to applications at the time of filing, but the bench identified a gap between registration practices and the actual inclusion of those numbers in judicial orders. The practice of omitting such essential information, the High Court found, undermined procedural consistency and could lead to unnecessary confusion or disputes when applications were challenged or reviewed in higher judicial forums. By mandating the inclusion of application numbers and details of appearances, the High Court aimed to create a more robust record-keeping standard that would benefit litigants, counsel, and reviewing courts alike.
The court explicitly requested that all district courts in Delhi ensure compliance with the directions, emphasising that the inclusion of application numbers and appearance details should become standard practice in all judicial orders passed by subordinate judiciary. The bench’s instructions were framed with the objective of strengthening procedural rigour at the district court level and ensuring that the judicial record accurately reflects the sequence of filings, the identities of participants, and the context in which decisions are made. It was observed that such uniformity in order-writing practices would greatly benefit appellate courts tasked with examining the legality or correctness of interlocutory decisions, as it would provide clear, traceable links between applications and the orders adjudicating them. The High Court’s issuance of these directions reflects a broader concern to enhance transparency and consistency in judicial proceedings and to address administrative inefficiencies that can arise when basic procedural details are omitted from court orders.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.