SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, December 11, 2023

Printed For: Jay Sharma, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009 SCC OnLine All 335 : (2009) 76 ALR 76 : (2009) 6 All LJ 397 (DB)

Allahabad High Court

BEFORE S. RAFAT ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.

Between
State of U.P. through Special Secretary Shiksha Anubhag IX, Govt.
of U.P., Lucknow and others
Versus
Committee of Management, D.A.V. Inter College, Mahoba through
it's Manager and another
Special Appeal No. 146 of 2001
Decided on April 1, 2009
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAFAT ALAM and SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.:— This appeal has been filed by the
State of U.P. against the judgment dated 10.1.2001 of the Hon'ble Single Judge in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48654 of 2000 wherein his Lordship has taken a general
view on the question as to whether application for extension of time bound interim
orders is necessary or whether it must be heard by the same Judge or it could be
heard by another Judge, who is seized of the jurisdiction as a result of rotation of
Bench and has held that no order is required to be passed as time bound interim
order. If case is not taken up, and if the petitioner applies for question answer from
the office to find out whether his application was pending and interim order was
continuing even after expiry of time mentioned in the order, the answer be given by
the office in the affirmative.
2. Having heard learned standing Counsel, we are of the view that the judgment
under appeal is not sustainable in law.
3. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana1 , the Apex Court said “There is no warrant
for the proposition, as was stated by the High Court that unless an order of stay
passed once even for the limited period is vacated by an express order or otherwise;
the same would continue to operate. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
Judgment of the High Court cannot sustain, which is set aside accordingly”.

Page: 77

4. Similarly, in the case of Arjan Singh v. Punit Ahluwalia2 , it was held that “We
agree with the High Court on this issue. If the order of injunction was operative up to
a particular date, technically the order of injunction shall not remain operative
thereafter”. In the case of Arjan Singh injunction order was passed for a limited period
and thereafter it could not be extended since on the date fixed the Presiding Officer
was on leave and later on the case having been transferred to another Court the
interim order was neither extended nor vacated despite the fact that even extension
application was pending. The High Court took the view that once no order of extension
of the interim order was passed and interim order was operating till particular date it
would not continue automatically and would cease on the date upto which it was
granted. This view of the High Court was affirmed by the Apex Court.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, December 11, 2023
Printed For: Jay Sharma, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court squarely apply here also. It
cannot be said that an interim order passed for a limited period would continue
automatically if for one or the other reason the case could not be taken up by the
Court. If Court has passed interim order for a limited period, unless that order is
extended, it would not continue automatically. The view taken by the Hon'ble Single
Judge is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed above and,
therefore, cannot sustain.
6. So far as the question as to which Judge shall hear the matter; suffice it to
mention that the case has to be placed as per the determination made by Hon'ble the
Chief Justice, under the Rules of the Court, unless the case is part heard or tied up,
specifically mentioned in the order or appears by necessary implication from the
language of the order. Mere passing of an interim order will not make the said case
tied up or part heard with the Bench of Hon'ble Judge and the application for vacation
of such an interim order can be listed before the Bench, which is assigned jurisdiction
of such matters by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
7. The special appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated
10.1.2001 of the Hon'ble Single Judge is accordingly set aside.
Appeal Allowed.
———
1. (2007) 3 SCC 470 : 2007 (51) AIC 118 (SC).
2.
(2008) 8 SCC 348.
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.