Court’s Decision:
The Orissa High Court held that the disposal of CP No. 262 of 2016 by the Family Court at Cuttack, despite a stay order, is non est in law and set it aside. The court further transferred the case to the Family Court at Puri for further proceedings. However, TRP(C) No. 378 of 2017 was dismissed as infructuous.
Facts:
The petitioner filed two transfer applications seeking the transfer of CP No. 262 of 2016 and CP No. 680 of 2014 from the Family Court in Cuttack to the Family Court in Puri. Interim orders were granted by the Orissa High Court to stay the proceedings. Despite this, the Family Court in Cuttack resumed and concluded the proceedings in these cases, citing a Supreme Court judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The proceedings were resumed and the cases concluded with judgments being delivered. The petitioner raised concerns that the disposal of CP No. 262 of 2016 occurred after the stay order and after the judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., which overruled Asian Resurfacing.
Issues:
- Whether the Family Court in Cuttack could legally resume and conclude the proceedings despite the stay order from the High Court.
- Whether the proceedings in CP No. 262 of 2016 and CP No. 680 of 2014 should be transferred to the Family Court in Puri.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the Family Court in Cuttack was in error to resume the proceedings in light of the High Court’s stay order. The petitioner contended that Asian Resurfacing had been overruled by the judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, making the subsequent disposal of CP No. 262 of 2016 illegal and non est.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent countered by asserting that the Family Court in Cuttack was justified in resuming the proceedings based on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Asian Resurfacing, which was applicable at the time of the resumption. Additionally, the respondent argued that CP No. 680 of 2014 had been dismissed for default due to non-appearance, making the transfer application moot.
Analysis of the Law:
The case hinged on the applicability of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Asian Resurfacing and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad. While the Asian Resurfacing judgment allowed the resumption of cases after six months if no stay order was renewed, this judgment was later overruled. The High Court analyzed whether the resumption of the proceedings in light of Asian Resurfacing was appropriate and what the effect of the subsequent overruling would be.
Precedent Analysis:
The key precedents considered were:
- Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation – which allowed the automatic vacation of stay orders after six months.
- High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. – which overruled Asian Resurfacing and clarified that cases concluded due to the automatic vacation of stay orders would remain valid unless otherwise directed.
Court’s Reasoning:
The High Court held that while the Family Court’s actions were in line with the law as it stood at the time, the subsequent overruling of Asian Resurfacing by the Constitution Bench meant that the disposal of CP No. 262 of 2016 was void. As the Supreme Court’s ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad became the law of the land, the Family Court was obligated to respect the stay order and should not have proceeded with the case.
Conclusion:
The Orissa High Court declared the disposal of CP No. 262 of 2016 to be non est and set aside the judgment, restoring the case to its status before the stay order. The court allowed the transfer of this case to the Family Court at Puri. However, TRP(C) No. 378 of 2017, concerning CP No. 680 of 2014, was dismissed as the case had already been dismissed for default.
Implications:
The decision reinforces the principle that when a superior court’s stay order is in place, no lower court can proceed with a case. It also highlights the importance of adhering to the latest rulings of the Supreme Court, as judgments that overrule earlier precedents must be followed by all lower courts.