Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Ranjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bandana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of appeal and interim stay orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. impugned order silent on reasons for non-extension. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. interim relief withdrawal requires speaking reasoned order. (Para 7) |
| 4. non-speaking order set aside; direct reasoned decision. (Para 8) |
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
Non-speaking orders refusing extension of interim stay are unsustainable; courts must record reasons for not continuing previously granted protection against residence relief.
An appeal against an interim order is not maintainable; the appellant must file an application for vacation of the order.
Interlocutory orders are not appealable if they do not conclude pending proceedings.
Appellate Court reviewing trial Court order under Order 39 Rule 2-A must assess its legality vis-à-vis pleadings and evidence, not re-decide violation as Court of first instance despite re-appreciati....
Point of law : Jurisdiction of High Court is not barred irrespective of label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of Constitution.
Courts must not exceed their jurisdiction by issuing interim directions without granting the parties an opportunity to be heard, and failure to render necessary findings to support an order would be ....
The appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, lies against the order of status-quo, rendering the revision filed under Section 210 not maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
