Trial Courts/ Tribunals Must Not Adjourn Cases Based On Oral Submission Of Parties That Matter Is Stayed: Kerala HC Issues Guidelines

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus stated that Courts or Tribunals must direct parties to submit affidavits if they have not produced the stay order and that matters should not be adjourned merely relying upon their oral submissions.

“If any submission is made before a court/tribunal stating that an interim order/stay is passed by the High Court, but the stay order is not produced, the courts/tribunals concerned should ask the parties to file an affidavit to that effect and then only the case needs to be adjourned.”

In this case, the petitioners had filed a criminal miscellaneous case in the year 2017 in the High Court to quash the final report against them for offences under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. When the matter came up, the High Court admitted the case and issued a direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested.

The case was adjourned for taking steps and came up before the Court only in 2024. At that point, the High Court sought a report from the Magistrate regarding discrepancy in e court records, which indicated that the proceedings were stayed despite there being no stay order issued by the High Court. The High Court also clarified it had issued a directive against arrest and that the proceedings were not stayed.

To the dismay of the High Court, the Magistrate submitted a report stating that the parties were adjourning the matter over the last several years stating that the proceedings were stayed in the High Court. The Magistrate also noted there was no stay order in the file and that the parties had sought time to produce the order.

The Court stated that there is a tendency for the Trial Courts and Tribunals to adjourn cases relying upon the oral submissions of the advocates that there is a stay order from the High Court. It cautioned that the Trial Courts and Tribunals should not adjourn cases based solely on the oral submissions of advocates/parties.

The Court said, “With technological advancements, anybody can check the status of the High Court cases by simply browsing the High Court website. But without doing the same, the courts, tribunal and other judicial forums are adjourning the matter, relying only on the submissions of the counsel/parties that the case is stayed by this Court, when no such orders are passed by this Court.”

The Court cautioned that the Trial Courts and Tribunals should not adjourn cases based solely on the oral submissions of advocates/parties and they must ensure that parties submit an affidavit to that extent, if a stay order is not produced.

The Court further stated if there is already a stay, then it can be verified from the Case Status of the High Court website whether the stay is extended or is in force, if it was submitted that the stay is extended and is in force.

Court said, “At that stage also, the courts/tribunals can insist for an affidavit from the parties, if the stay extension order is not produced. A reasonable time can be given to the parties to produce the stay order or stay extension order (maximum one month).”

The Court stated that if no stay or affidavit is produced, then the Courts or Tribunals must continue with the proceedings after verifying the case status on the High Court website.

Further, the Court stated that if parties produce an order that the stay is extended until further orders by the High Court, then the Courts or Tribunals should insist affidavit from the parties once in three months thereafter, stating that the order is in force.

The Court stated that staying the proceedings without a stay order or affidavit from the parties will be taken seriously. It also stated that if new presiding officers take charge, then they must not adjourn proceedings mechanically but must insist for a copy of the stay order/ stay extension order/ affidavit from the parties. 

The Court also directed that the district courts must record proceedings in the Case Information System (CIS)/Case Management System (CMS) properly and non-mentioning of case details will be taken seriously.

The Court thus directed the Registrar of the District Judiciary to issue strict directions to the judicial officers and Tribunals for strict compliance of these guidelines.

In the facts of the case, the Court directed the parties to file a discharge petition before the Trial Court.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates G Santhosh Kumar (P), Jeeavan Balakrishnan

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N R

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 5706 OF 2017

Case Title: Vinod v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 598

Click here to Read/Download Order