1967 (3) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in granting permission during a stay order.
2. Effect of a stay order on the jurisdiction of executing courts.
3. Difference in judicial opinions among various High Courts regarding stay orders.
4. Application of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in setting aside interim proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in Granting Permission During a Stay Order:
The central issue was whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant permission for eviction while a stay order was in effect. The appellant argued that the permission granted by the Magistrate was a nullity since it was given after a stay order had been passed but before the Magistrate had knowledge of it. The High Court of Allahabad had ruled that the stay order did not take away the Magistrate's jurisdiction because he was unaware of it at the time of granting permission. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the stay order, being a prohibitory order, does not affect the jurisdiction of the court until it is brought to the court's knowledge.

2. Effect of a Stay Order on the Jurisdiction of Executing Courts:
The Supreme Court examined differing opinions among High Courts on whether a stay order takes effect immediately upon issuance or only after the executing court has knowledge of it. The Court favored the view that a stay order, being prohibitory in nature, requires the executing court to have knowledge of it before it can take effect. The Court clarified that an executing court does not lose its jurisdiction immediately upon the issuance of a stay order; it only loses jurisdiction once it becomes aware of the stay order.

3. Difference in Judicial Opinions Among Various High Courts Regarding Stay Orders:
The judgment reviewed various High Court decisions to resolve the conflict:
- The High Courts of Calcutta, Patna, and Punjab held that a stay order takes effect immediately upon issuance, regardless of the executing court's knowledge.
- The High Courts of Madras and Kerala held that the executing court retains jurisdiction until it gains knowledge of the stay order.
- The Allahabad High Court took an intermediate view, protecting third-party interests if the executing court was unaware of the stay order.

The Supreme Court endorsed the view of the Madras and Kerala High Courts, emphasizing that a stay order is akin to a prohibitory order and does not nullify proceedings until the executing court is informed.

4. Application of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Setting Aside Interim Proceedings:
The Court highlighted that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the executing court to set aside any proceedings taken between the issuance of a stay order and the court's knowledge of it, if necessary for the ends of justice. The Court stated that while the executing court retains jurisdiction until it learns of the stay order, it can use its inherent powers under Section 151 to rectify any interim actions taken during this period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the permission granted by the Magistrate on October 4, 1961, was valid as he had no knowledge of the stay order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the stay order did not nullify the Magistrate's jurisdiction until he was informed of it. The judgment clarified the legal position on the effect of stay orders and the necessity of knowledge for such orders to take effect, aligning with the views of the Madras and Kerala High Courts.