Written arguments vs oral arguments

YES MYSELF ALSO WANT TO KNOW ANSWER PLS.ANY SEN PERSON PLS GIVE A LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE.........

It is because of outdated advocats and courts that oral arguments are still going on. To save time, to increase transperancy and correctness, submitting written argumants must be made mandatory. Rather all such papers be filed by email and copy to otherside too by email.

I have seen in oral arguments judge ignores what is said if he wants to. Adds something from his imagination. And if there is blatant lie in written arguments then opposite party can take suitable action too which is not easy in oral.  

U mean 2 say written argument is better?

Experts kindly provide comprehensive answers to all points!

rajiv

1) Written arguments permitted by all the courts.

2) no,  prior permission no need, 

3) Both are equal.

4) Not necessary.

5) definetely, they took a copy written arguement and they prepared reply for next hearing.

sumathy - advocate

9380902010

Order XVIII Rule 2(3A) of CPC says, "(3A) Any party may address oral arguments in a case, and shall before he conduces the oral arguments, if any, submit if the Court so permits concisely and under distinct headings written arguments in supportsof his case to the Court and such written arguments shall form part of the record."

After 2000, even examination in chief should be given in writing only. Particularly so, in case of Tribunals. This will certainly save time of the court and all facts and circumstances of the case would be on record. The clerk's/steno's mistake in noting down the points would be ruled out.

I hope this satisfies your query.

I remember, Shonee had advised me to use written argument as well, so that court won’t miss points.

I guess, Oral argument is must most of the time. It creates direct impact; good counsel can develop positive impression and highlight important points by using his/her communication skills. Only problem is that court can miss some decisive factors and this blunder sometimes may result in bad decisions.

Written argument is kind of evidence that you have stated and signed. Least dependency on counsel. You use your logic and facts and state them in most effective manner. You need to be a bit cautious as whatever you write, can be used anywhere else too.

I am fighting my case and what I normally do is prepare written argument, take printout, discuss it with my lawyer; update it if required. Then my counsel uses that written argument for his oral argument. I believe this is the best way.

Experts please advise.

O 18 R 2(3A) speaks about both - first oral and then written. My style is to write down the salient features and highlight them in my oral arguments and then submit written argument for better response. I have observed in many of my cases that the Court helps the litigant when he or his counsel is unable to express or explain some critical facts properly and they add some situations on their own presumption in the interest of justice.

The fear that the written arguments may be used somewhere else is out of place becuase each case is decided on its merits.

Many reputed counsels just come to the court and speak a few words and go away. They can enjoy that luxury because they have earned that kind of reputation. Other advocates can't afford to do it else they lose the case.

written arguments are the best as you cover each and every point in detail and no prior permission is needed for this .

Dear advocates, 

While we are discussing on on the topic of written arguments, I wish to raise one query.

Almost in all the cases where written arguments are submitted, a large number of portion is seen being repeated. To be frank, it is copy-pasted from the original petition itself. Can this be avoided somehow? Can the original petitions be left short and crisp?

Please guide.

@ Renuka ji, 

That's exactly my point. Many advocates make two bunches with exactly same text and make one of them a petition and another one a written argument. To use your example: 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For eg:

Petition:  Tomatoes contain two pigments for photosynthesis—chlorophyll, which is green, and lycopene, which is red.  As tomato contains lycopene, it gives tomato red colour. 

Further.. The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.

As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes or bean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example.

So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking.

Argument:  Tomatoes contain two pigments for photosynthesis—chlorophyll, which is green, and lycopene, which is red.  As tomato contains lycopene, it gives tomato red colour. 

Further.. The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.

As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes or bean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example.

So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the above example, can't the original petitions be left short and crisp?

So, in short you at least agree that, the contents of the petitions and written arguments SHOULD NOT BE EXACTLY IDENTICAL.

Thanks.

Good answer Mrs.Renuka