Seek District & Sessions Judge's Opinion Before Interpreting SC's Stay Vacation Verdict In 'Asian Resurfacing' Case: P&H HC Directs Civil Judges

In a significant order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to seek the opinion of their respective District and Sessions Judges before interpreting Supreme Court's direction in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI.

It may be noted that in the Asian Resurfacing judgment (supra), the Supreme Court had, in March 2018, 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.

The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan issued this order after noticing a “disturbing fact” that a number of contempt petitions were being filed against the young Judicial Officers (majority from Punjab), who were daring to interpret the order in Asian Resurfacing’s case (supra) as per their convenience. 

While directing the Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates to seek opinion of their respective District and Sessions Judges, the Court has further ordered the District and Sessions Judge that as and when they receive such matters with regard to interpretation of the order passed by the High Court, they shall give their opinion within a period of three weeks.

The bench also directed the the Director, Judicial Academy, Chandigarh to hold online seminar of all the Civil  Judges/Judicial Officers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh with regard to interpretation of the Asian Resurfacing’s case (supra).

The Court was essentially dealing with a contempt plea filed against a Judicial officer for allegedly violating High Court's March 10, 2014 order in a case related to the sale deed of a property. In its order, the High Court had, while adjournig the appeal to August 29, 2014, directed that the execution of impugned decree would remain stayed “in the meantime”.

However, thereafter, the appeal was adjourned for about 4 years on the request of either of the parties but no order of extension of stay was passed.

Now, in October 2018, the executing Court passed an order proceeding with the execution proceedings by interpreting the stay order dated 10.3.2014 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing case (supra) as there was no extension of stay order beyond six months.

Essentially, the Judicial Officer in question interpreted the judgment in Asian Resurfacing case (supra) to hold that if the stay has not been extended beyond six months, and rather for a period of about 5 years, he can proceeded further with the execution proceedings.

Against that very order, the contempt plea was filed that the Judicial Officer had violated the HC's order wherein stay was granted 'in the meantime'. 

Against this backdrop, the High Court noted that it was apparent that after the order dated 10.3.2014 was passed by the HC in staying execution of the impugned decree in the meantime, while adjourning the case to 29.8.2014, at no point of time, the stay order was extended and the case remain listed before different Benches for more than 5 years.

The Court noted that a considerable long period had passed when in the execution proceedings, a Local Commissioner was appointed to execute the sale deed in order to finally decide the execution petition.

"The Judicial Officer has given a plausible explanation that as per his judicious conscious, he has interpreted that in the absence of any extension of stay order dated 10.3.2014, which was granted till the next date, i.e. 22.8.2014, with a rider “in the meantime” in the light of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing’s case (supra) was interpreted that there is no extension of stay beyond six months, rather a period of five years has elapsed. It is further stated by the Judicial Officer that there was no mala fide on the part of the respondent and there was no intention or willful disobedience of the order of the Court," the Court observed as it took note of the stand of the judicial officer.

In view of the above, the Court held that no willful disobedience took place on the part of the Judicial Officer is made out, who due to non-cooperation by the petitioner in the execution proceedings has proceeded further. Consequently, the contempt plea was dismissed.

Case title - Saroj Kanta vs. Jai Parkesh and others [COCP-1663-2020]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 52

Click Here To Read/Download Order