The judgment emphasizes the need for a speaking order to extend the stay beyond six months, as per the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) RCR (Criminal) 415.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - The petitioner alleges violation of the order dated 10.3.2014, vide which while adjourning the RSA No.2142-2013 to 29.8.2014, it was directed that 'In the meantime, execution of the impugned decree shall remain stayed.'

The case file of RSA No.2142-2013 is summoned and interim orders are perused.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by respondent No.1/Jai Parkesh-plaintiff on 20.4.2007 praying for decree of possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 28.12.2006 regarding 01 Bigha 12 Biswas of land for a total consideration of Rs.3,85,000/-. This suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Jai Parkesh against Chatter Singh @ Kaptan/defendant No.1 and petitioner Saroj Kanta/defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the execution of agreement to sell. The defendant No.2 set up a plea that she is a bona fide purchaser. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.3.2010 partly decreed the suit regarding return of Rs.1,00,000/- earnest money along with interest @ 12% per annum till its realisation.

3. In appeal filed by respondent Jai Parkesh, the same was accepted and defendant No.1 Chatter Singh @ Kaptan was directed to execute the sale deed of the disputed property within two months of the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff-appellant-Jai Parkesh was held entitled to get the sale deed executed through trial Court.

4. The petitioner/defendant No.2 filed the present RSA No.2142-2013, which was listed on 16.5.2013 and notice of motion was issued only to Jai Parkesh for 20.8.2013.

On 20.8.2013, the trial Court record was requisitioned for 10.3.2014.

5. On 10.3.2014, the aforesaid order granting stay of execution of the impugned decree was passed and the case was adjourned for 29.8.2014.

6. On 29.8.2014, on request of the counsel for the appellant, it was adjourned to 23.2.2015, however, there was no extension of stay. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 15.9.2015, 22.3.2016, 1.8.2016, 13.12.2016, 23.5.2017, 6.11.2019, 5.3.2018, 9.8.2018 and 1.2.2019 but no order of extension of stay was passed.

7. Again, the case was adjourned to 7.8.2019, 17.1.2020 and 15.5.2020 and stay was never extended and even no application was filed by petitioner (who is appellant) for extension.

8. Thereafter, it appears that the case was not listed due to COVID-19 situation and now it is listed for 2.5.2023.

9. A perusal of all the orders, subsequent to order dated 10.3.2014 would show that till 17.1.2020, for a period of 6 years, when the case was actually listed before different Benches, the case was simply adjourned on the request of either of the parties and neither there was any prayer made by the petitioner-appellant for extension of stay nor it was ever extended.

10. The present contempt petition is filed in 2020 with the allegation that in violation of the interim order dated 10.3.2014, respondent No.1 Jai Parkesh has executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 Chatter Singh @ Kaptan on 15.8.2020.

11. The petitioner has relied upon an order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the executing Court, i.e. respondent No.3-Civil Judge as under :-

'Jai Parkash Vs. Chattar Singh etc.

Present : Sh. N.S. Kataria, counsel for the DH.

JD No.1 Ex-parte VOD 3.2.2014

Sh. Karan Singh, counsel for the JD No.2.

The DH has put appearance and through his separately recorded statement submitted that the sale deed vasika No.2136 dated 14.11.2018 has been executed in his favour. The DH has requested that the Court may order for the incorporation of such sale in the revenue record. It is also stated that in view of registration of above-mentioned sale deed, he withdraws the present execution petition. Heard. The perusal of record shows that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase 32/978 share in the property of JD and in pursuance of the same, the above-mentioned sale deed was executed. The plaintiff/DH shall be entitled for the physical possession of the property after part