The court reaffirmed the necessity of handling related applications together to ensure judicial efficiency, highlighting that monetary claim stays and possession restoration must not be dismissed as separate issues.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. On the Court indicating to Mr. Gaurav Jain that Prayer D in this petition was objectionable as drafted, Mr. Jain, on instructions, does not press the said prayer. As such, this petition would be limited to prayers A to C in the petition. Thus limited, the prayer clause in the petition reads thus:

"a. Set aside the Order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Ld. ADJ-04, South, in the appeal (RCA DJ 08/2021).

b. Pass directions to the appellate court (presided by a Judge other than ADJ-04, South) to first decide the stay application and the restoration application in light of the Order dated 04.11.2022 passed in CM(M) 1185/2022.

c. Set aside the orders dated 22.03.2022, 24.03.2022 and 04.11.2022 passed in Ex No. 343/2021."

2. This petition is a sequel to CM (M)1185/2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide the following order dated 4th November 2022.

"1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to restrict his relief in the present petition to a direction to the learned ADJ, before whom the proceedings in RCA DJ 8/2021 are stated to be coming up tomorrow to take up, forthwith, the application of the petitioner for restoration of possession of property no. 36-A, Third Floor, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, as well as for stay of execution of the judgment and decree, dated 22nd March 2021. He submits that, even during the pendency of his stay application, against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22nd March 2021, in execution proceedings preferred by the respondent for execution of the judgment and decree, a Bailiff was appointed and his client was evicted from the premises forming subject matter of consideration.

2. He submits that, prior to the date when the eviction took place, arguments had been completely heard on the petitioner's stay application, but no orders were passed as the learned Presiding Officer who heard the matter was transferred.

3. RCA DJ 8/2021 is stated to be listed before the learned ADJ on tomorrow i.e., 5th November 2022.

4. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a request to the learned ADJ to take up the petitioner's stay application as well as the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession in the property in question, tomorrow itself, or in case that is not possible, on a suitable date next week and to pronounce orders on the said application as expeditiously as possible thereafter.

This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Court Master. "

3. As is clear from a reading of the afore-extracted order dated 4th November 2022, this Court had directed the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) to take up the stay application as well as the application for restoration of possession, filed by the petitioner before the learned ADJ, on the very next date or on a suitable date, the week thereafter and to pronounce orders thereon as expeditiously as possible.

4. Mr. Gaurav Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 9th November 2022 violates the directions contained in the order dated 4th November 2022 supra passed by this Court.

5. The impugned order dated 9th November 2022, to the extent it is relevant, notes the fact that the application filed by the petitioner for stay of operation of the judgment dated 22nd March 2021, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (the learned ASCJ) has become infructuous, as possession of the suit property also stands taken by the respondents pursuant to orders dated 28th April 2022, passed by the learned Executing Court.

6. Mr. Jain points out that the judgment and decree forming subject matter of challenge in RCA DJ 8/2021 not only granted possession of the suit property (situated at 36-A, Cheema House, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi) to the respondent,