Upon the dismissal of a revision petition for non-prosecution, any interim stay orders granted during those proceedings merge with the final order and cease to exist, thereby rendering applications for relief based on such expired stay orders non-maintainable.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants No.2 and 4 laying challenge to the order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Case No.CS/ 46289/2013 registered on 16.07.2012 vide which application filed by the petitioners, and defendant No.3 for striking off/expunging testimonies of plaintiff witness stated to have been given in violation of interim orders of this Court, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that vide order dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure P5) passed in Civil Revision No.2579-2017, this Court had unambiguously and categorically directed: “…… to direct the trial Court to adjourn the matter to a date beyond that given by this Court in the accompanying petition, i.e. 1.2.2019.”. Learned counsel submits that the said interim direction had been carried forward from 13.11.2018 till 17.05.2023 by way of consecutive orders dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure P6), 31.5.2022 (Annexure P7), 23.01.2023 (Annexure P8), and 17.5.2023 (Annexure P9). It is submitted that despite the said stay granted by this Court, the learned trial Court had kept the proceedings open and kept examining plaintiff witnesses PW2 to PW8 as is evident from zimni orders dated 01.04.2019, 07.05.2019, 23.05.2019, 02.12.2022, 20.12.2022, 11.01.2023, 30.01.2023, 15.02.2023 (Annexure P13 colly). It is contended that therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff witnesses PW2 to PW8 had been recorded in violation of the stay orders passed by this Court. Thus, the evidence of the said witnesses is liable to the struck off.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the above said stay orders from 13.11.2018 till 17.5.2023 could not be brought to the notice of the learned trial court due to mistake on part of the learned Counsel representing the petitioners before the trial court. Anyhow, the learned trial Court was well aware of the stay order granted by this Court as is evident from the zimni order dated 05.08.2017 (Annexure P18) and zimni order dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure P19) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 to PW8 had been recorded by the learned trial Court in complete violation of the directions issued by this Court to the learned Civil Judge to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court. It is submitted that it is for this reason that the petitioners and defendant No.3 had moved the instant application dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P23) for striking off/eschewing evidence led by PW2 to PW8. However, vide impugned order, the said application of the petitioners has been dismissed without appreciating that the said evidence was permitted to be led by PW2 to PW8 in violation of the stay granted by this Court. It is accordingly prayed that the present revision petition be allowed, and impugned order be set aside.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and points out that the CR-2579-2017 in which the orders dated 13.11.2018 to 17.05.2023 (Annexure P5 to P9) had been passed, was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P10). Whereas the instant application was moved by the petitioners on 07.08.2024 (Annexure P23), which is after the dismissal of CR-2579-2017. As such, any stay granted by this Court had merged into the final order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure