Back
Seeks Explanation Over Non-Existent Stay Order in Execution Case
Justice Lapita Banerji calls for after executing court relies on HC order that never existed
The has taken a serious view of an apparent judicial anomaly, directing the District Judge of Sri Muktsar Sahib to explain how an Additional District Judge (ADJ) relied on a non-existent High Court order to stay . The order came in a civil revision petition filed by Hardev Singh and others challenging the issuance of warrants of attachment against their property.
The Dispute: A Stay Order That Wasn't
The case stems from in EXE-86-2024 , where the is the . On , the ADJ passed an order that appeared to stay the execution based on a High Court order dated . However, when the matter came before Justice Lapita Banerji, the Corporation's counsel, , placed the ADJ's order on record and submitted that no such High Court order existed concerning the parties.
What the Petitioners Argued
Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal , representing the , countered that the stay was actually granted on , by the same ADJ while hearing an application under . He argued that the executing court had erroneously recorded that the stay was passed by the High Court, when in fact it was the ADJ who had granted it while hearing the objection petition.
Multiple Inconsistencies Noticed
The High Court did not stop at the disputed stay order. Justice Banerji also flagged two further contradictions in the ADJ's August 19 order:
-
The order recorded that
"the presence of the
is awaited,"
yet it also noted the appearance of the 's counsel. - It stated that (JDs) No. 1 to 7 were proceeded against , but simultaneously recorded the presence of counsel for JDs No. 3 to 6.
These internal inconsistencies, along the reliance on a possibly fictitious HC order, prompted the court to intervene.
"Serious Issue" – Court Calls for
Observing that a "serious issue" had been raised, Justice Lapita Banerji directed:
"Let abe called from the learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, explaining the anomaly that has crept into the order dated, passed in EXE-86-2024."
The court also specifically asked the District Judge to clarify how the contradictory entries came to be recorded in the same order.
Next Hearing
The matter has been adjourned to , to allow time for the . Until then, the remain clouded by uncertainty over the validity of the stay order on which the ADJ relied.
