Punjab and Haryana High Court seeks explanation over erroneous stay order attribution by ADJ

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed serious concern over an order passed by an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in Sri Muktsar Sahib that mistakenly attributed a stay order to the High Court when in fact it was passed by a different ADJ in Chandigarh. Justice Lapita Banerji, hearing a civil revision filed by Hardev Singh and others against the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, called for a status report from the District Judge of Sri Muktsar Sahib to explain the anomaly.

Background of the Case

The matter arose from execution proceedings initiated by the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (PSWC) to enforce an arbitration award. The executing court, presided over by the ADJ, Sri Muktsar Sahib, issued warrants of attachment against the judgment debtors, Hardev Singh and others. However, the petitioners claimed that a stay of execution had been granted by the ADJ hearing their application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Surprisingly, the executing court’s order recorded that the stay had been passed by the High Court, leading to confusion.

Contradictions in the Order

When the matter came up before the High Court, counsel for PSWC, Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, pointed out that no such stay order existed from the High Court. He placed before the bench an order dated August 19, 2026, in EXE-86-2024, to demonstrate that the High Court had never passed any stay. This prompted Justice Banerji to examine the order more closely.

The Court noted two glaring contradictions: first, the order stated that the presence of the decree holder was awaited, yet it recorded the appearance of the decree holder’s counsel. Second, it noted that judgment debtors No.1 to 7 were proceeded against ex parte, but then recorded the presence of counsel for judgment debtors No.3 to 6.

Serious Issue Raised

Observing that the discrepancies raised serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process, Justice Banerji directed:

"Let a status report be called from the learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, explaining the anomaly that has crept into the order dated August 19, 2026 , passed in EXE-86-2024."

The Court further sought an explanation for the contradictory entries in the order.

Implications

The case highlights the importance of accuracy in judicial orders, especially when attributing stays to higher courts. The High Court’s intervention underscores that any misattribution can undermine the credibility of the judiciary. The matter has been adjourned to November 30, 2026, for the submission of the status report.