How to determine matters in dispute in Judiciary Court?

Advocate Arjun *

High Court Complex at Chingmeirong Imphal on April 07 2012 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

Generally, to settle or determine the issues or matters in dispute or disagreement between the opposite parties in Judiciary Court is a common practise that practically the Courts will decide the issues with regard to the relevant LAWS AND FACTS of the case. However, both these ideas of QUESTION OF LAWS AND QUESTION OF FACTS are often ambiguous and possess more than one distinct meaning. It is therefore suggestive to understand and consider the particular facts of the case first and then the relevant laws of the case.

According to the legal philosopher Salmond, all matters and questions which come before a Court of Justice are of three kinds, viz:
A). Relations between the matters and question of Laws.
B). Relations between the matters and Judicial Discretion.
C). Relations between the matters and Question of Facts.

In the first case, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the Laws and decide the case accordingly. In second case, the Court can exercise its own Judgement to be right, just, equitable or reasonable. In the third case, it is the duty of the Court to weigh the evidences, and then come to its conclusion. As the legal system grows in due course of social change and development, there is a tendency to transform questions of fact and question of judicial discretion into that question of law. It can make sense in application of different laws of the different cases though both have the similar or same facts and circumstances occurred in two different time and place, if it is so fit in time and place. In this sense, Laws couldn’t be static always. It is dynamic in nature.

Parker writes that actual cases may involve questions of laws, facts and judicial discretion at the same time. Whether a Company should be wounded up, involves the question of facts and laws as to what were to be done. When it was alleged, the question of laws will be considered whether they are sufficient to examine and adjudicate the question of facts of the Company. The question of determination of the Court is to be just or equitable in view of the circumstances. That’s it to observe or see whether the company is or not to be wounded up.

Questions of Facts are questions of what actually are and questions of Discretion are Questions of Right and of what ought to be done by the Court. In Questions of Fact, the Court directs what is Just. Questions of Fact have to be proved by evidence and demonstration but questions of Discretion are subjects of reasoning and argument. It is a question of fact whether a particular person has committed a crime or not and this can be proved or demonstrated. Hence, it is a question of discretions for the Court to decide what punishment should be given to a person who has been found guilty of a particular offence.

Facts and Laws together to be determined:

First of all, Court is bound to answer all the materials and matters in controversy in a suit, in accordance with a Rule of Laws. All other questions are questions of facts. Each question which has not been determined before and authoritatively answered by law, is a question of fact. Whether a Contractor has been guilty of unreasonable delaying in building up a house, is a question of fact as the law doesn’t contain any rules for its determination.

Whether the holder of a bill of exchange has-been guilty of unreasonable delay in giving notice of dishonour is a question of law to be determined in accordance with certain fixed principles laid down in the Bill of Exchange Act. The question whether a child accused of a crime has sufficient mental capacity to be criminally responsible for his act is one of the fact if the accused is over the ages of 10 years in England and18 years in India. It is a question of law if he is under that age. So, both the question of Laws and Facts are to be considered together.

The business of the Court is to determine what in its own judgement and in fact, is the true meaning of the words used by the legislative. An authorative answer to the question becomes a judicial precedent which is law for all other cases in which the same statutory provision is in question. The Judicial Interpretation of the various questions of facts as to the meaning of that Statute into questions of law is to be answered in conformity with the decided cases. As regards to British, the questions of Law are for the Judges whereas the questions of Facts are for the Jury for decision. But, questions of facts can be referred to a Jury normally after hearing to the Counsels or Jurist. The interpretation of a particular document is a question of fact but very often it is done by the Judge himself.

The question of reasonable and probable cause for prosecution in a suit for malicious prosecution is decided by the Judge although it is a question of fact, Patan points out that although a Judge lays down the law and the Jury applies it to facts and arrives at a conclusion, that is a matter of mixture of law and fact and not fact alone. The term question of fact has more than one meaning.

In a general sense, it includes all questions which are not questions of law. A question of fact is a matter of fact as opposed to a matter of question of opinion. Evidence is given to find out the true facts of the case.

It can also be proved by means of demonstrations. Hence, a question of “Opinion” cannot be proved by demonstrations or by evidence. Experiences show that in actual practice, questions of law and fact are mixed. Thus, we have a mixed question of law and fact to determine a case.