LPA-1564-2025 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT VED PALL MANN AND OTHERS DR. POONAM CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-3835-LPA Application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing of appeal is allowed, and accordingly the delay is condoned. Main case 1. This is an appeal again filed by the concerned appellants stating that in terms of the view taken by us earlier in LPA they have moved appropriate application for vacation of stay under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, granted in their absence. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Single Judge has adjourned the matter for the date already fixed i.e. 04.08.2025, resulting 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VED PALL MANN AND OTHERS Vs. POONAM CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA **** Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) LPA-2025 Application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing of appeal is allowed, and accordingly the delay is condoned. This is an appeal again filed by the concerned appellants stating that in terms of the view taken by us earlier in LPA they have moved appropriate application for vacation of stay under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, granted in their absence. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Single Judge has adjourned the matter for the date already fixed i.e. 04.08.2025, resulting in a situation where the appellants would be IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1564-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 . . . . Appellants POONAM CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing of appeal is allowed, and accordingly the delay is condoned. This is an appeal again filed by the concerned appellants stating that in terms of the view taken by us earlier in LPA-1262-2025 filed by them, they have moved appropriate application for vacation of stay under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, as an ex-parte stay was granted in their absence. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Single Judge has adjourned the matter for the date already fixed i.e. in a situation where the appellants would be (O&M) .2025 s . . . . Respondent Application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing of This is an appeal again filed by the concerned appellants stating that in 2025 filed by them, they have moved appropriate application for vacation of stay under stay was granted in their absence. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Single Judge has adjourned the matter for the date already fixed i.e. in a situation where the appellants would be MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1564-2025 disturbed from their plac passed and therefore, the interim order passed by the Single Judge stands automatically vacated. 2. Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of the India under Article 226(3) which mandates the stay to be vacated automatically after expiry of 14 days. 3. Both the counsel have relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in others, 2024 INSC 150 the High Court stays a trial, it takes a very long time for the High Court to decide the main case. To avoid any prejudice to the opposite p ad High Courts should normally grant ad limited duration. After hearing the contesting parties, the Court may or may not confirm the earlier ad Ad only after application of mind by the concerned Court. Hence, the Courts must give necessary priority to the hearing of the prayer for interim relief where adinterim relief has been expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with the prayer for the grant of stay or interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind to the relevant factors. contesting parties cannot be vacated by the High Court without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the party whose prayer for interim relief has been granted. 2025 (O&M) disturbed from their place of posting. He submits that passed by the Single Judge on application moved under Article 226(3), and therefore, the interim order passed by the Single Judge stands automatically vacated. Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of the India under Article 226(3) which mandates the stay to be vacated automatically after expiry of 14 days. Both the counsel have relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 150, wherein the majority view held as under: “34. At the same time, we cannot ignore that once the High Court stays a trial, it takes a very long time for the High Court to decide the main case. To avoid any prejudice to the opposite parties, while granting ex ad-interim relief without hearing the affected parties, the High Courts should normally grant ad limited duration. After hearing the contesting parties, the Court may or may not confirm the earlier ad Ad-interim relief, once granted, can be vacated or affirmed only after application of mind by the concerned Court. Hence, the Courts must give necessary priority to the hearing of the prayer for interim relief where adinterim relief has been granted. Though the High Court is not expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with the prayer for the grant of stay or interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind to the relevant factors. 35. An interim order passed after hearing the contesting parties cannot be vacated by the High Court without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the party whose prayer for interim relief has been granted. . He submits that no order was by the Single Judge on application moved under Article 226(3), and therefore, the interim order passed by the Single Judge stands Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of the Constitution of India under Article 226(3) which mandates the stay to be vacated Both the counsel have relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and wherein the majority view held as under: 34. At the same time, we cannot ignore that once the High Court stays a trial, it takes a very long time for the High Court to decide the main case. To avoid any arties, while granting ex-parte interim relief without hearing the affected parties, the High Courts should normally grant ad-interim relief for a limited duration. After hearing the contesting parties, the Court may or may not confirm the earlier ad-interim order. interim relief, once granted, can be vacated or affirmed only after application of mind by the concerned Court. Hence, the Courts must give necessary priority to the hearing of the prayer for interim relief where adinterim granted. Though the High Court is not expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with the prayer for the grant of stay or interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind to the rder passed after hearing the contesting parties cannot be vacated by the High Court without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the party whose prayer for interim relief has been granted. no order was by the Single Judge on application moved under Article 226(3), and therefore, the interim order passed by the Single Judge stands Constitution of India under Article 226(3) which mandates the stay to be vacated Both the counsel have relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1564-2025 Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both si observed earlier, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on the available grounds. In such a case, the High Court must give necessary priority to the hearing of applications for vacating the stay, if the main case Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time. The High Courts cannot take recourse to the easy option of directing that the same should be heard along with the m principles will apply where ad an ad party can always apply for vacating ad High Court is expected to take up even such application on a priority basis. If an application for vacating ex ad interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, the same must be taken up at the earliest. D. CONCLUSIONS decided the case, we are unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision in the case of cannot be automatic vacation of stay gra Court. We do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdi We answer both the questions framed in paragraph 5 above in the negative. summarise our main conclusions as follows: proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expire only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in 2025 (O&M) Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both si observed earlier, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on the available grounds. In such a case, the High Court must give necessary priority to the hearing of applications for vacating the stay, if the main case cannot be immediately taken up for hearing. Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time. The High Courts cannot take recourse to the easy option of directing that the same should be heard along with the m principles will apply where ad-interim relief is granted. If an ad-interim order continues for a long time, the affected party can always apply for vacating ad High Court is expected to take up even such application on a priority basis. If an application for vacating ex ad interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, the same must be taken up at the earliest. D. CONCLUSIONS 36. Hence, with greatest respect to the Bench which decided the case, we are unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing cannot be automatic vacation of stay gra Court. We do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis within a time frame. We hold that such blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We answer both the questions framed in paragraph 5 above in the negative. 37. Subject to what we have held earlier, we summarise our main conclusions as follows: a. A direction that all the interim proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expire only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both sides, as observed earlier, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on the available grounds. In such a case, the High Court must give necessary priority to the hearing of applications for vacating the stay, if the cannot be immediately taken up for hearing. Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time. The High Courts cannot take recourse to the easy option of directing that the same should be heard along with the main case. The same interim relief is granted. If interim order continues for a long time, the affected party can always apply for vacating ad-interim relief. The High Court is expected to take up even such applications on a priority basis. If an application for vacating ex-parte ad interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, the same must be taken up at the earliest. 36. Hence, with greatest respect to the Bench which decided the case, we are unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision Asian Resurfacing1. We hold that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. We do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day basis within a time frame. We hold that such blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the ction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We answer both the questions framed in paragraph 5 above 37. Subject to what we have held earlier, we summarise our main conclusions as follows: a. A direction that all the interim orders of stay of proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expire only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1564-2025 the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which are relevant for deciding the reference are as follows: justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be e of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court; ignore the substantive rights of the litigants; 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for st procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the cas adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right; and cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an in should refrain from fixing a time disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time bound The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and 2025 (O&M) the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; b. Important parameters for jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which are relevant for deciding the reference are as follows: (i) The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court; (ii) Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants; (iii) While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for st procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. The right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right; and (iv) The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence. c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time- disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article b. Important parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which are relevant for deciding the reference are as (i) The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be xercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before this (ii) Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants; (iii) While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for streamlining procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties e before it. The right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a (iv) The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural tegral part of our jurisprudence. c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, -bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time- disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1564-2025 interim consideration the guidelines incorporated in paragraphs 34 and 35 4. In view of above, it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to have decided the application for vacation of stay, instead of posting the same for the original date on which the main case was listed, taking into consideration that the matter relates to t 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the application filed in CWP sustainable. 5. At the same time, the language of Article 226(3) reflects that after a period of aspect has also been dealt with in the judgment Association, Allahabad (supra), decide of India is mandatory or directory. Clause (3) of Article 226 reads thus: “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs: whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without 2025 (O&M) d. While dealing with the prayers for the grant of interim relief, the High Courts should take into consideration the guidelines incorporated in paragraphs 34 and 35 above.” In view of above, it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to have decided the application for vacation of stay, instead of posting the same for the original date on which the main case was listed, taking into consideration that the matter relates to t 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the application filed in CWP-9834-2025 by the appellants sustainable. At the same time, the language of Article 226(3) reflects that after a period of 14 days, the stay stands automatically vacated, and the said aspect has also been dealt with in the judgment Association, Allahabad (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “26. In this case, it is unnecessary for this Court to decide whether clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mandatory or directory. Clause (3) of Article 226 reads thus: “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs: (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (2) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without— (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and d. While dealing with the prayers for the grant of relief, the High Courts should take into consideration the guidelines incorporated in paragraphs In view of above, it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to have decided the application for vacation of stay, instead of posting the same for the original date on which the main case was listed, taking into consideration that the matter relates to transfer. The order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the application filed by the appellants (respondents therein), is not At the same time, the language of Article 226(3) reflects that after a 14 days, the stay stands automatically vacated, and the said aspect has also been dealt with in the judgment of High Court Bar wherein it has been held as under: 26. In this case, it is unnecessary for this Court to whether clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mandatory or directory. Clause (3) of Article 226 reads thus: “226. Power of High Courts to issue (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a — (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and In view of above, it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to have decided the application for vacation of stay, instead of posting the same for the original date on which the main case was listed, taking into ransfer. The order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the application filed , is not At the same time, the language of Article 226(3) reflects that after a 14 days, the stay stands automatically vacated, and the said High Court Bar MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1564-2025 when an interim relief is granted without furnishing a copy of the writ p opposite party and without hearing the opposite party. Even assuming that clause (3) is not directory, it provides for an automatic vacation of interim relief only if the aggrieved party makes an application f interim relief and when the application for vacating stay is not heard within the time specified. Clause (3) will not apply when an interim order in a writ petition under Article 226 is passed after the service of a copy of the writ petiti opportunity of being heard. It applies only to ex interim orders. 6. In view of above, the interim order passed by the automatically vacated. passed by the Court was only till a particular date, whereafter it has not 2025 (O&M) (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furn such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on whic such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.” On its plain reading, clause (3) is applicable only when an interim relief is granted without furnishing a copy of the writ petition along with supporting documents to the opposite party and without hearing the opposite party. Even assuming that clause (3) is not directory, it provides for an automatic vacation of interim relief only if the aggrieved party makes an application f interim relief and when the application for vacating stay is not heard within the time specified. Clause (3) will not apply when an interim order in a writ petition under Article 226 is passed after the service of a copy of the writ petition on all concerned parties and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It applies only to ex interim orders.” In view of above, the interim order passed by the automatically vacated. We also notice that the earlier interim passed by the Court was only till a particular date, whereafter it has not (b) giving such party an opportunity of makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand On its plain reading, clause (3) is applicable only when an interim relief is granted without furnishing a copy etition along with supporting documents to the opposite party and without hearing the opposite party. Even assuming that clause (3) is not directory, it provides for an automatic vacation of interim relief only if the aggrieved party makes an application for vacating the interim relief and when the application for vacating stay is not heard within the time specified. Clause (3) will not apply when an interim order in a writ petition under Article 226 is passed after the service of a copy of the writ on on all concerned parties and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It applies only to ex-parte ad In view of above, the interim order passed by the Court stands We also notice that the earlier interim order passed by the Court was only till a particular date, whereafter it has not Court stands order passed by the Court was only till a particular date, whereafter it has not MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1564-2025 been extended. The writ petition would be now heard. made clear that there is no interim order protecting the writ petitioner. 7. Appeal stands disposed of 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 27.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) been extended. The writ petition would be now heard. made clear that there is no interim order protecting the writ petitioner. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No been extended. The writ petition would be now heard. However, it is made clear that there is no interim order protecting the writ petitioner. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No However, it is MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document