Decided on April 08,1994

Bhupendra Nath Sen Appellant
Durgadas Saha And Others Respondents


Santosh Kumar Phaujdar, J. - (1.)The matter has been mentioned by Mr. Mukherjee, who appeared for the appellant at the time of admission of the appeal and disposal of the application for interim order. The learned Advocate who filed the Caveat also has been informed and he is present in Court. It is stated by Mr. Mukherjee, upon production of a copy of the letter written by his learned junior communicating our order dated 28th of March, 1994, inter alia , granting a stay of further proceedings in the connected execution case, that the executing Court has expressed that unless an authenticated copy of the order passed by us is produced by 8th of April, 1994, the writ for delivery of possession will become executable. We are told further that the Writ for delivery of possession has already been issued. Such instances of refusal on the parts of the subordinate Courts are being brought to the notice of this Court very frequently. We propose of clarify and express that the letter, communicating an interim order, of a learned advocate ought to be given the importance and sanctity which it deserves. We also would like to remind the executing court, in this particular case that the convention of communication of the interim order through the letters of the learned advocates asking the concerned subordinate court to act upon it has been judicially accepted and stands firmly established for a very long time. We do not like to allow such a conventional procedure, which has almost the status of a legal procedure, be given a go-bye. Unless, therefore, there are definite materials available to the concerned subordinate Court, indicating that the letter of the learned advocate does not communicate the relevant order correctly or gives a distorted version of the same or has lost its effect due to non-fulfilment of any condition imposed by the Court, the letter must be deemed to be an authenticated communication of the Court's order and must be acted upon. The Executing Court is, therefore, directed to act upon the said letter and keep the proceedings in the execution stayed unless there are definite grounds and materials made available to Court for holding that the order is no longer effective or is not in force. A xerox of the communication of the learned advocate-on-record for the appellant in this Court as produced before us today, be kept on the records of this case.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.