You may have come across a court judgement that was too difficult to comprehend because of the complex jargon in it. But have you seen a judgement rendered incomprehensible because of the quality of English?

Such a case has come to light thanks to the Himachal Pradesh high court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court was forced to set aside a 2016 order because the judges just couldn't made head or tail of it.

“We will have to set it aside because one cannot understand this,” said Justice Lokur, who was with Justice Deepak Gupta, Hindustan Times reports.

What's the case?

In November 1999, a landlord filed an eviction petition against his tenant for alleged non-payment of rent. In December 2011, the landlord got a warrant of possession and the tenant was evicted from the portion of the property where he ran his shop.

However, because the high court stayed the decree of the trial court, the tenant retained possession of the residential premises. In December, 2016 the high court reversed the trial court order and set aside the tenant's eviction. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

And now thanks to the complex language in the judgement, the SC has set aside the HC order

Despite its best efforts, the SC judges failed to comprehend it. Not just the bench, even the lawyers representing both the parties could not understand or assist the judges in the matter, reports The Tribune.

Now that you are tempted to know just what is written in the judgement, here are a few samples:

“(The)...tenant in the demised premises stands aggrieved by the pronouncement made by the learned Executing Court upon his objections constituted therebefore...wherewithin the apposite unfoldments qua his resistance to the execution of the decree stood discountenanced by the learned Executing Court”.
“However, the learned counsel...cannot derive the fullest succour from the aforesaid acquiesence... given its sinew suffering partial dissipation from an imminent display occurring in the impunged pronouncement hereat wherewithin unravelments are held qua the rendition recorded by the learned Rent Controller...”

You can read (if not understand) the entire judgement here.