- (1.) IN the instant Civil Revision application stay order was passed in favour of the tenant on 11.11.2011 staying delivery of possession, inspite of it, the possession was handed over. An I.A. No. 143 of 2011 was preferred for restoration of possession. A report was sent by the Executing Court that the interim order was not communicated and, therefore, possession was handed over. This Court passed an order on 12.12.2011 granting time to the tenant revisionist to bring on record certain details to substantiate the fact that interim order of the High Court was brought on record prior to 17.11.2011. The instant Interlocutory application is filed pursuant to the aforesaid direction. Annexure -2 is an application dated17.11.2011; a copy of which was also supplied to the contesting opposite parties.
(2.) THE fact regarding interim order dated 11.11.2011 is mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said application. An order dated 28th November, 2011 is also annexed with the Interlocutory application. Perusal of the same gives out entirely a different story. Extract of the said order dated 28th November, 2011 passed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2011 is quoted herein below: "..........From perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Court, it is clear that both side (Decree Holder, Judgment debtor) were present before the Hon'ble Court at the time of order then they must have informed this Court and they ought not to have proceeded in this matter by handing over the possession and taking over the possession, when there is stay then Judgment debtor must not have handed over possession and decree holder must not have taken over the possession. Either side or both sides ought to have filed a petition before this Court with affidavit that Hon'ble Court has stayed further proceeding and in that case this Court would not proceed in the matter and would certainly have directed the Nazir not to give the effect to decree. Decree Holder is directed to explain the matter restitution of possession will be effected immediately at once after receiving the direction from the Hon'ble Court . It is, thus, clear that the order was within the knowledge of the parties. I have also noticed that when the stay order was passed, counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite parties were also present in this Court and, therefore, the findings recorded in the order, which is quoted herein above, stand fortified.
(3.) IN view of these facts evidently, the Court below acted in a highhanded manner. In fact, it was a clear case, where interim order of the High Court was bypassed and possession was handed over, which cannot be allowed. However, I am not inclined to initiate proceeding against erring officer, but it is directed that steps shall be taken to restore the possession to the revisionist within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. In the event of delay, it goes without saying that legal proceeding will be drawn against the person who once again try to bypass the order of this Court.;