Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rahmat Bee Dead Kamruddin And ... vs Harshveer Singh And Ors on 21 September, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
S.A. No. 76 of 2011
Smt. Rahmat Bee Dead Kamruddin And Ors. Versus Harshveer Singh And Ors.
21.09.2021 Shri V. G. Tamaskar, counsel for the Appellants except Appellant No.1(B)-
Kamruddin, who died during the pendency of this appeal.
Shri A. K. Prasad, counsel for the Respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.07/2021, an application filed on 06.09.2021 seeking an
appropriate direction against the concerned executing Court, who is bent upon in
proceeding ahead with the execution proceedings despite issuance of specific direction of
this Court, issued on 10.03.2011 and 29.08.2016.
Learned counsel for the Appellants, while furnishing the order sheets of the
executing Court, commencing with effect from 11.11.2013 upto 23.08.2021, submits that
the learned Judicial Officer Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh Daangi (executing Court) vide
orders dated 17.02.2021 and 27.07.2021 has directed the parties to produce the fresh
stay order as the effect of earlier interim orders as passed by this Court on 10.03.2011
and 29.08.2016 has come to an end by efflux of the period of six months in the light of the
principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Asian Resurfacing
Of Road Agency Private Limited and another vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299.
From perusal of the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010 passed in
Civil Appeal No.39-A/2003, it appears that the learned District Judge, Durg, while
upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court, has directed the appellants to
handover the possession of the suit land described in plaint map to the Respondents
within a period of two months.
The aforesaid judgment and decree has, however, been questioned in appeal
being Second Appeal No.76 of 2011 and after considering the nature of the decree, which
is found to be executable in nature, this Court has passed the order on 10.03.2011, which
reads as under:-
"Meanwhile, parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to
possession of the suit property, till the next date of hearing.
The aforesaid interim order has been directed to remain in force until further orders
vide its order dated 29.08.2016, while admitting the appeal, which reads as under:-
"The interim relief granted by this Court on 10.03.2011 to
continue until further orders."
In view of the aforesaid specific directions, it is evident that upon due consideration
of the nature of the decree under appeal, the parties were directed to maintain the status-
quo with regard to the possession of the suit property until further orders, yet the
executing Court, while referring to the principles laid down in the matter of Asian
Resurfacing Of Road Agency Private Limited and another vs. Central Bureau Of
Investigation (supra), has observed that the effect of the aforesaid orders as passed on
10.03.2011 and 29.08.2016 has come to an end by efflux of the period of six months. It
is, however, appropriate at this juncture to reproduce the direction contained at para 36 of
the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"36.................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.........."
It is, thus, evident from a bare perusal of the aforesaid direction 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 unless it is extended by a speaking order. The
said direction is, thus, applicable only to the pending cases where trial of a suit is yet to be
completed and would not be applicable to a suit where trial has already been completed
and the decree has been drawn, as happened in the instant matter.
The concerned executing Court has, therefore, not applied correctly the dictum of
the Supreme Court as laid down in the said matter of Asian Resurfacing Of Road
Agency Private Limited and another vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation (supra),
which is not applicable in the instant case as observed herein above and, the orders
passed by the concerned executing Court demanding repeatedly the fresh stay order is in
direct conflict with the interim orders passed by this Court. It is, therefore, inappropriate on
the part of the said Judicial officer to disobey the orders of this Court which amounts to
judicial indiscipline. The Registrar General is, therefore, directed to call upon his (Shri
Dhirendra Pratap Singh Daangi) explanation as to why disciplinary action be not taken
against him for alleged disobedience and, place the matter before the Court, while
registering a Miscellaneous Civil Case.
With the aforesaid observation, I.A. No.07/2021, thus, stands disposed of.
At this stage, Shri Tamaskar prays for two weeks' time to file the Vakalatnama on
behalf of the proposed legal representatives of deceased Appellant 1(B)-Kamruddin.
As prayed by him, post this matter after two weeks.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Nikita
