Non-speaking orders refusing extension of interim stay are unsustainable; courts must record reasons for not continuing previously granted protection against residence relief.

By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 17.03.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., which reads as under:-

“Office report seen. Appeal be registered.

Let notice be issued to the respondents for 25.04.2025. Till then operation of order dated 18.02.2025 only to the extent of relief of residence in favour of the respondents is stayed, however, let it be mentioned that the appellants shall comply with the order dated 18.02.2025 to the extent of payment of maintenance amount to the respondents.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kangra, H.P., in case titled Bandana Kumari and another v. Rajneet Singh and others, decided on 18.02.2025, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal. When the appeal was listed before the Appellate Court on 17.03.2025, the following order was passed:-

“Office report seen. Appeal be registered.

Let notice be issued to the respondents for 25.04.2025. Till then operation of order dated 18.02.2025 only to the extent of relief of residence in favour of the respondents is stayed, however, let it be mentioned that the appellants shall comply with the order dated 18.02.2025 to the extent of payment of maintenance amount to the respondents.”

3. Thereafter, on 25.04.2025, the impugned order was passed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders appended with the petition as well as other documents, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. When the appeal was taken by the learned Appellate Court on 17.03.2025 and notices were issued to the respondents, it in its wisdom stayed the operation of the order dated 18.02.2025 to the extent of the relief of residence was concerned. On the next date of hearing i.e., 25.04.2025, the learned Appellate Court observed that the previous order was not being extended. Why so? The order is silent.

6. This Court is not observing that the learned Appellate Court was not having the power not to extend the order but the reasons as to why the protection granted to the appellant was not being extended should have been reflected in the order.

7. Grant of interim relief and withdrawal thereof does not depends upon the whims and fancies of the Court concerned, but is dependent upon assignment of reasoning to justify the decision. However, non-speaking orders cannot be passed as has been done in the present case and this Court deprecates this kind of practice by the learned Court below. If the learned Appellate Court was of the opinion that the relief granted to the appellant on the previous date was not liable to be extended some reasons should have been reflected in the order. In the absence of the reasons being reflected on the order, the impugned order is bad and is held as such.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 25.04.2025 is set aside and it is observed that order on the interim application filed by the present petitioners before the Appellate Court be passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with law after hearing both the parties by passing a reasoned order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.