Allahabad High Court
Dharam Vir Sood vs Smt. Savitri Devi And 4 Ors. on 5 April, 2019
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 19 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 205 of 2016 Revisionist :- Dharam Vir Sood Opposite Party :- Smt. Savitri Devi And 4 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Saral Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- V.K. Barnwal,Anchal Ojha Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Anchal Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that although this Court had stayed the eviction of the revisionist "until further orders" but the executing court relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2018 (SC) 2039 is inclined to proceed with the execution of the decree passed by the trial court.
I have gone through the said judgement, particularly paragraph 34, wherein, the Supreme Court has issued the following direction :-
"35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced."
(emphasis supplied) The dispute before the Supreme Court emanated from criminal proceedings in a case relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court held that the order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order, consequently, jurisdiction of High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. The Supreme Court, thereafter observed that even where challenge is entertained and it is considered desirable to stay the proceedings of the trial, the same should be for short period and endeavour should be made to decide the challenge expeditiously, normally within 2-3 months. Even where the matter remains pending for a long time, duration of stay of the trial should not exceed six months unless extension is granted by a specific order recording reasons therefor.
The Supreme Court also observed thus :-
"In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced. "
In paragraph 36 of the same judgement, the High Courts have been directed to issue instructions to the above effect and monitor the implementation of the said direction so that the proceedings do not remain pending for long period. The said direction as contained in paragraph 36 of the judgement is extracted below :-
"36. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage."
It is abundantly clear that the above direction of the Supreme Court is in relation to the pending trial where proceedings of the trial court is stayed by the High Court. The said direction would not apply to the facts of the instant case where the trial has concluded and the final judgement of the trial court is under challenge.
This Court, therefore holds that the order passed by this Court while entertaining the writ petition dated 3.8.2016 staying eviction of the revisionist pursuant to impugned judgement and decree, would not automatically come to end upon expiry of six months unless modified or vacated.
The executing court is directed to act accordingly.
Civil Misc. Application No.5 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.
Counsel for the revisionist seeks two weeks time to file counter affidavit to the abatement application, which is allowed.
List after two weeks.
Order Date :- 5.4.2019 skv (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)