Case Cannot Be Adjourned Indefinitely Merely On Submission Of Parties That It Is Stayed: Kerala HC Directs Courts, Tribunals & Quasi-Judicial Forums
The Kerala High Court observed that the cases cannot be adjourned indefinitely by Courts, Tribunals and Quasi-Judicial Forums merely on the submission of the parties that the case is stayed, without getting a copy of the order or an affidavit from the parties.
The Court said that now anybody can access the case search facility on the High Court website to find out whether there is any stay in any proceedings or whether the stay already granted is extended by the Court.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed to quash the proceedings on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
The bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed, “…the cases cannot be adjourned indefinitely recording the submission of the parties that the case is stayed, without getting a copy of the order or an affidavit from the parties…”
Advocate G Santhosh Kumar appeared for the Appellant and PP Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the Respondent.
“The court cannot blindly accept the submission of the parties and adjourn the matter stating that the matter is stayed without getting a copy of the order or an affidavit of the parties stating that the case is stayed or the interim order already granted is extended by this Court.”, the Court said.
The Court said that if an order is produced by the parties in which the stay is extended until further orders, the Court should insist on an affidavit from the parties once in three months stating that the order is in force.
The Court said that all the Courts in the District Judiciary and Courts/tribunals/Quasi-Judicial Forums under the supervision of the Court should adhere to the following directions in future:
“(i) 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.
(ii) If there is already a stay and the case number is also furnished by the parties, the courts/tribunals can direct the office to verify the case status from the High Court website to find out whether the stay is extended or is in force if there is any submission that the stay is extended and is in force. 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).
(iii) If no stay order or affidavit is produced stating that the stay is in force, the courts/tribunal concerned shall proceed with the case in accordance with the law after verifying the case status on the High Court website.
(iv) If an order is produced by the parties in which the stay is extended until further orders by the High Court, the courts/tribunals should insist an affidavit from the parties once in three months thereafter, stating that the order is in force.
(v) If any case is adjourned by the courts/tribunals recording that the matter is stayed without getting the stay order/stay extension order/ affidavit of the parties stating that the matter is stayed or stay is extended, this Court will take it as very serious.
(vi) If a new presiding officer took charge in a court/tribunal, a mechanical order stating that the matter is stayed should be avoided in future. The new presiding officer concerned should follow the above directions strictly and insist for a copy of the stay/ stay extension order/ affidavit from the parties stating that the matter is stayed.
(vii)All courts of the District Judiciary should see that the proceedings of the courts are recorded in the Case Information System (CIS)/Case Management System (CMS) properly and the non mentioning of the case details in the CIS/CMS will be taken seriously by this Court.”
The Court directed the Registrar, and District Judiciary to issue strict directions in tune with the directions given by the Court to all Principal District Judges of the State including tribunals and other judicial forums under the supervision of the Court along with a copy of the order.
The Court directed the Principal District Judge to forward a copy of the order to all the Courts in his jurisdiction for strict compliance.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
Cause Title: Vinod v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:70756)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates G Santhosh Kumar and Jeevan Balakrishnan
Respondent: PP Sangeetharaj NR
