MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Anchal Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Counsel for the revisionist submitted that although this Court had stayed the eviction of the revisionist "until further orders" but the executing court relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2018 (SC) 2039 is inclined to proceed with the execution of the decree passed by the trial court.
(3.) I have gone through the said judgement, particularly paragraph 34, wherein, the Supreme Court has issued the following direction :- "35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced." (emphasis supplied);