# involved in Petty Offences

- **Citation:** C. L. No. 61/2007Admin(G)
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1995-02-08
- **Case number:** C. L. No. 61/2007Admin(G)
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/involved-in-petty-offences-163149
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

153
Issuing summons/notices to the Department concerned against the accused persons
involved in Petty Offences.
C. L. No. 61/2007Admin(G): Dated :13.12.2007.

The Hon'ble Court has noticed that a long delay in disposal of Petty Criminal
Cases pertaining to Municipal Challans, Police Challans, Traffic Challans, Challans under
Weights and Measurements Act and Forest Act etc. is taking place due to the Challaning
Authorities not providing correct address of the accused in the Challans submitted before
the Courts which results in services of notices/summons on them not being affected.

Therefore, I am directed to say that the Court concerned shall send
summons/notices of all such accused persons to the Department concerned to be served
upon them.

 I am further to add that to kindly bring the contents of this Circular Letter to the
notice of all the Judicial Officers working under your administrative control and to
impress upon them to ensure compliance of the above directions of Hon'ble Court in letter
and spirit .
(ii) Grant of stay in cases where merely Appeal, Revision or writ petition
preferred.
C.L. No. 6/Admn.'G' dated 8 February, 1995
The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges have been pleased to direct that all Judicial
Officers may be advised that mere filing of an appeal, revision or even a writ petition
against an order or judgment does not, by itself, constitute any valid or justifiable ground
to stay the operation thereof. In other words, unless the implementation of the impugned
order or judgment is stayed by the competent court, it must be given effect to and carried
out.
Disregard of these directions cannot but invite serious adverse note.
Stay of proceedings in the cases pending before the trial court
C.L. No. 40/2006, dated 19.9.2006
With reference to the above subject, I am directed to request you that bemoaning
the interminable stay in proceedings to be prominent causes of docket explosion it have
been resolved in the Chief Justices' Conference, 2006 that a mechanism needs to be
evolved to contain this menace.
Therefore, I am directed to request you to kindly impress upon all the Judicial
Officers in your Judgeship to take necessary steps for vacation of stay in proceedings
pending before the Trial Court at the end of six months. However the stay in proceedings
could be extended on the basis of adequate and special reasons in writing and the same is
to be recorded in the concerned file of the case,
I am further directed to request you to kindly bring the contents of the circular
letter to the notice of all the Judicial Offi8cers is the judgeship for their guidance and
strict compliance.
(iii)
Proforma regarding continuance of Stay Orders granted by the Hon'ble
High Court.
C.L. No. 47/IVf-5/Admn.(Inspection) Section, dated 13 December, 1995
154
I am desired to enclose a proforma approved by the Hon'ble court for making
enquiries regarding continuance of stay orders granted by the Hon'ble High Court.
In future, all the enquiries in this respect be made on the enclosed proforma only.
PROFORMA REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STAY ORDERS GRANTED
BY
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
Sl.
No.
Particulars of cases of
Particulars of cases of high Court
Lower Court,

Civil/
Criminal
Case
Number
Year
Name
of
parties
District
Crl/Civil/
Revision/Ap
peal/ Writ
Number
Year
Date of Stay Order
Granted by the
Hon'ble High
Court
Stay
continuing
Stay
vacated
on....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Date

Prepared by:-

 Checked by:

SIGNATURE OF THE OFFICER
(iv)
Circulation of the copy of Judgment and order dated 21.05.2004 in C.M.
W.P. No. 19123 of 2004-Bhagwati Prasad Lohar & Other Vs. State of U. P.
and others; 2005 (99) RD 333
C.L.No.15/ Admin:'G' 2006 dated: 3 may 2006
The Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar) while dealing with the
order issuing notices for affording opportunity of hearing to the other side before passing
any injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of the Code of civil Procedure, has
observed and held that the order issuing notice for affording opportunity of hearing to the
other side before passing any injunction order by the trial court is an interlocutory order
against which no revision lies. Therefore, while enclosing herewith a copy of Judgment
and order dated 21.05.2004 in C.W.M.P. No.19123 of 2004-Bhagwati Prasad Lohar &
Other Vs. State of U. P. and others, 2005 (99) RD 333, I am directed to request you that
the judgment and order referred to herein above be circulated amongst all the judicial
officers posted in your judgeship for their guidance and compliance.
(For Judgment See - 2005(99) R.D. 333)
(V) Interim Injunction applications not to bar the progress of the trial.
C.L. No. 62/2007 Admin (G): Dated: 13.12.2007

It has come to the notice of Hon'ble Court that the Subordinate Courts usually
defer final hearing of the cases in which the parties move Interim Injunction applications
despite their being no stay order by the Appellate/Revisional Court. The said reason has
been identified to be one of the most prominent reasons for delay in disposal of civil
cases. Therefore the Hon'ble Court has desired that the Subordinate Court be clearly
instructed not to halt the trial proceedings unless there is a stay granted in the matter by
superior court.

Therefore, I am directed to request you to kindly impress upon all the Judicial
officers posted under your administrative control not to defer final hearing in matters
155
wherein no stay order has been passed by any Superior Court staying further proceedings
of the case and take up such matters as per routine of the Court.
5.
COMMISSIONS
(i)
Inland
C.L. No. 22/VIII h-13 dated 18th March, 1949

Immediately after the issues have been struck the presiding officer should
consider, may be on an application by a party, if the preparation of a site plan or enquiry
after local inspection at the spot is necessary for the proper decision of the case. The
commission should as far as possible, be issued on that very day with clear and detailed
directions to be recorded in the Judge's notes, as to what the commissioner is required to
show in the plan and on what points he is required to make a specific report. If any
witness is to be examined on commission the court may consider the issue of a
commission then and not postpone it till after the recording of the entire oral evidence.
C.L. No. 35/VIII-b-23 dated 15 March, 1971

Presiding Officers should mention the name of the commissioner at the time of
passing order of issuing commission.
Second commission
G.L. No. 19/67 dated 1st May, 1929
 A second commission should not be issued until good reasons are given why the
first commission should not be accepted. When once a second commission is issued the
first commission goes out of evidence entirely. No reference can afterwards be made to
that first commission. If second commission is also found to be unsatisfactory reasons
should be given and that commission should also be taken out of the evidence. The
attention of judicial officers is drawn to the relevant passages from I.L.R. XLV Mad. 79
(Judgment in S.A. no 671 of 1919 between K.K.M., Thottama and C.S. Subramanian).
Distribution of commissions
G.L. No. 4386/89 dated 4th December, 1922

The attention of District Judges is drawn to the necessity of ascertaining
periodically the number of commissions issued to legal practitioners in each court
subordinate to them and sees that there is a fair distribution of such work. The court
regards this supervision as most important.
C.L. No. 102/411-h-3 dated 2nd December, 1968
Strict compliance of Rule 65(4), General Rules (Civil) may be impressed upon the
presiding officers so that commissions for preparation of a map or for making partition
are ordinarily issued to Amins only in the first instance.
Timely execution of commissions
C.L. No. 110/VIII b-28 dated 24th October 1952
Presiding officers should be strict in demanding execution of commissions in time
and in case a commissioner is found to be dilatory or his work is generally found to be