Disposed¶20

Smt. Rashmi Shukla (Pandey) v. Sourabh Pandey

Chhattisgarh HC13 Feb 2025MCC/643/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; MCC No. 643 of 2023; 2025:CGHC:8083-DB; office reference; PUD dated 06.10.2023; order dated 05.05.2023 in FA(MAT)-196-2022; explanation of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur found unsatisfactory; strict warning to judicial officer; stay order compliance to be recorded in order-sheet; disposed on 14.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Office reference (MCC) closed with a strict warning to the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur; general direction that courts below record compliance with communicated stay orders in their order-sheets; copy of the order to be sent to the concerned Judicial Officer for information and needful, through FAX and email. ¶20

Smt. Rashmi Shukla (Pandey) Vs Sourabh Pandey — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the explanation submitted by the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur pursuant to this Court's order dated 05.05.2023 in FA(MAT)-196-2022 is satisfactory, and what action should follow on the office reference. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The explanation given by the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur was found unsatisfactory; however, in the ends of justice, the office reference (MCC) was closed with a strict warning to the concerned Judicial Officer to be careful in future and to comply with this Court's orders and directions time to time in letter and spirit.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

It is directed that once a stay order of this Court staying the suit or its further proceedings is passed and communicated, the concerned court below/trial court must clearly record in its order-sheet that it is staying the suit/proceedings in compliance of the stay order, so that the judge's successor in office may follow the directions/orders without reservation.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.) — MCC No. 643 of 2023 [office reference; 2025:CGHC:8083-DB], decided 14.02.2025. Acting on a PUD (request letter) dated 06.10.2023 preferred in compliance of the Court's order dated 05.05.2023 in FA(MAT)-196-2022, whereby the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur had submitted his explanation, the Division Bench held the explanation unsatisfactory but, in the ends of justice, closed the office reference with a strict warning to the Judicial Officer to be careful in future and to comply with the High Court's orders and directions time to time in letter and spirit. The Court further directed that once a stay order staying a suit or its further proceedings is passed and communicated, the court below/trial court must clearly record such compliance in its order-sheet so that successor judges may follow the directions without reservation.

¶1

Page No.1 of 2 IN MCC-643-2023

¶2

2025:CGHC:8083-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by SAIFAN SAIFAN KHAN KHAN Date:2025.02.19 12:14:59 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

MCC No. 643 of 2023

¶7

Smt. Rashmi Shukla (Pandey) W/o Sourabh Pandey Aged About 29 Years D/o Shri Vinay Kumar Shukla, Presently R/o House No. 89, Sector-1, Type B, Balco Nagar, Police Station Balco District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sourabh Pandey S/o Shri Chandrhas Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Janakpur Road, Takhatpur Tehsil And Police Station Takhatpur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent(s) (OFFICE REFERENCE)

¶12

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

14. 02.2025

¶15

1. This office reference is based on a PUD (request letter) dated 06.10.2023, whereby in compliance of this Court’s order dated 05.05.2023, passed in FA(MAT)-196-2022, the Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur has submitted his explanation.

¶16

2. We have gone through the explanation given by the aforesaid Judicial Officer. Though we do not find the aforesaid explanation to be satisfactory, however, in the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to close this office reference (MCC) with a strict warning to the concerned Judicial Officer to be careful in future in this regard and to comply with

¶17

Page No.2 of 2 IN MCC-643-2023

¶18

the orders and directions passed by this Court time to time in its letter and spirit.

¶19

3. Further, it is also directed that once stay order is passed by this Court staying the suit or further proceeding of the suit and same is communicated, then the concerned Court below/trial Court are expected to clearly record in their order-sheet that in compliance of the stay order passed by this Court they are staying the suit or its further proceedings, as the case may be, so that his/her successor in office may clearly follow the directions/orders passed by this Court without any reservation.

¶20

4. With aforesaid observation and direction, this MCC stands closed/disposed of .

¶21

5. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial Officer i.e. the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur for information and needful. It be also sent through FAX and email.

¶22

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶23

s@if

Smt. Rashmi Shukla (Pandey) v. Sourabh Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rashmi Shukla (Pandey) v. Sourabh Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Akriti Infrastructure Vs Income-Tax Officer

Krishan Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

B. Venkatesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd Harun Rashid @ Bholu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalamsai Agariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Yadav @ Vicky Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh