Courts must express concessions by a party or counsel in unequivocal and unambiguous terms in court orders and bring them on record signed by the party or counsel to avoid ambiguity and ensure justice.

1. The order under challenge in this revision makes very unhappy reading, Before the learned Munsiff there was an objection to delivery by judgment-debtors 3 and 4, an objection which called for notice and disposal. On 26-8-1978 when the case came up before the learned Munsiff he has disposed of the objection thus:

"Heard both sides, judgment debtors have no objection, it is conceded. Hence for delivery to: 30-8-1978. For report to 31-8-1978".

As an order expressing the attitude of party or counsel giving up his objection on record what is stated by the learned Munsiff is vague and inadequate. The concession seen not made in writing should be reflected properly and well in the court's order if that is to be accepted by an appellate or revisional court as a relinquishment of the case by a party.

2. The consequences of any court committing an inadvertent error or mistake in noting that a party did not press his case are extremely grave and may result in perversion of justice. Every court which bases its decision on concession by a party or counsel must satisfy itself that it has not made a mistake in understanding the party or counsel and must express what has been submitted to it in unequivocal and unambiguous terms. There should be no room for speculation as to the meaning, scope or extent of the concession. If what the court has recorded by way of concession by a party or relinquishment of a plea by him is equivocal, and is not expressed in clear and specific terms the appellate or revisional court would be justified in not acting on it. Who made the concession and what was the exact scope of the concession are matters which should be apparent from the order if the court is to sustain such an order. Prudence should dictate to the Court that the concession by a party should be brought on record signed by the party or counsel. In the absence of such a record the court stands the risk of an appellate or revisional court scrutinising the statement in its order closely and carefully to see whether it should be acted upon.

3. In the case before me the order does not indicate whether it was the judgment-debtors that stated that they had no objection or whether it was their counsel. It is not evident as to what was conceded. It is not also evident as to what they had no objection to. An order such as the one before me is insupportable. The learned Munsiff should not have dealt with the matter in such a cursory manner The order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Munsiff. He is directed to take up the question and dispose it of immediately. Of course, I would have fixed a time limit, but I believe that even that is not necessary when this court directs immediate disposal. This is so in view of the fairly long pendency in this Court by reason of the Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to this extent. No costs.

Allowed.