Md. Aslam vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4845 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Civil Review No. 84 of 2022
         1.Md. Aslam
         2.Md. Nishar Ahmad
         3.Md. Imran Haider
         4.Md. Sharique Perwez
         5.Shamim Akhtar
         6.Hari Shankar Gupta
         7.Md. Aijaz Ahmed                                 .. ... ... Petitioners
                               Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand
         2. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
         3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad
         4. Musheer Alam Jahangir @ Mushreer Alam @ Masoor Alam
         5. Firoza Khatoon @ Samina Khatoon
         6. Md. Sarfaraz Ahamad
         7. Md. Parvez Alam
         8. Md. Javed Alam
         9. Md. Jamshed Alam
         10. Husna Ara
         11. Anzuma Ara
         12. Khurshida Bano
         13. Yeshmin Parwin @ Jugnu                         .. ... ... Opp. Parties
                               ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

         For the Petitioners                : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
                                              Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
         For the State                     :  Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
                                              Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II
                               ......
02/ 02.12.2022.

1. The instant Civil Review petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.374 of 2022.

2. C.M.P. No.374 of 2022 was filed by the decree-holder for direction to the learned court below i.e. Executing Court for expediting Execution Case No.47 of 2019, in which a direction has been issued by this Court to conclude the execution proceeding within a month.

3. It is submitted that the present petitioners, who claim to be sub-tenants have filed the instant Civil Review on the ground that they had preferred an objection to the Execution case under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 and Section 47 CPC.

4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No.09 of 2016 which was preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Title Eviction Suit No.49 of 1996 vide order dated 29.04.2016 had stayed the proceedings in Execution Case No.13 of 2004. The stay had also been granted in Second Appeal no. 189 /2008 by order dated 6.4.2009. In C.M.P. No.374 of 2022, it is submitted that while moving the petition for expeditious disposal of execution case, the stay orders passed in Second appeal was not brought to the notice of this Court. It is argued that unless the order of the stay

passed by the High Court is vacated, the decree cannot be executed. It is admitted by the petitioner that there has not been any order of renewal of the stay order granted in second appeal.

5. Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay and the stay if any granted by this Court does not continue till perpetuity in view of the specific directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 . In this case it has been directed 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.

6. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Anr. Vs CBI 2022 Live law (SC) 440, has not modified, as contended on behalf of the present petitioners, the earlier direction passed by the Hon'ble three judge bench, with respect to the stays granted in appeals. Their Lordships held, "this cannot be understood as having intended to apply the principle to the fact situation which is presented in this case". In view of the different and distinguishable factual matrix, the ratio of (2018) 16 SCC 299 was held to not to apply to that case. There is nothing in the order to suggest that the earlier order has been revisited or modified.

7. In the present case, the order of stay was passed more than 5 years ago in Second Appeal by the coordinate Bench of this Court. In view of the ratio laid down in (2018) 16 SCC 299 the said stay, has lost its force and the same has not been renewed. Under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C., only the appellate court can further renew the stay granted.

8. In the absence of any stay order, there is no reason why the execution proceeding should not proceed further expeditiously.

In the result the review petition fails.

The review petition is dismissed. I.A. No. 11073 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/