The Kerala High Court recently cautioned trial courts and tribunals to avoid adjourning cases only based on oral claims by lawyers or litigants that they have secured a stay order from the High Court [Vinod & anr v State of Kerala & anr].

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed that he has come across several cases where trial courts have adjourned cases for years on the basis of such oral submissions, even if such stay orders have actually not been passed.

He criticised the presiding officers of trial courts and tribunals for failing to verify such claims, even though the status of court cases can now be easily checked online.

"With technological advancements, anybody can check the status of the High Court cases by simply browsing the High Court website. But without doing the same, the courts, tribunal and other judicial forums are adjourning the matter, relying only on the submissions of the counsel/parties that the case is stayed by this Court, when no such orders are passed by this Court," the Court observed.

Therefore, it proceeded to issue certain guidelines for trial courts to follow in order to prevent such adjournments based on unsubstantiated claims by lawyers.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed in 2017 to quash charges in a cheating case. When the High Court initially took up the matter, it only passed an order protecting the petitioners from arrest, without staying the trial proceedings.

However, a report from the magistrate in 2024 revealed that the trial court had been adjourning the case for seven years on the misconception that the High Court had stayed trial court proceedings.

No such stay order had been passed by the High Court.

The Court expressed serious concern over such a state of affairs.

It directed lower courts to be more vigilant and insist on the production of a stay order or an affidavit if a lawyer or litigant claims that a stay order has been issued by the High Court.

"The court cannot blindly accept the submission of the parties and adjourn the matter stating that the matter is stayed without getting a copy of the order or an affidavit of the parties stating that the case is stayed or the interim order already granted is extended by this Court," the order said.

It also outlined certain guidelines to prevent further adjournments based on unsubstantiated claims of stay orders.

The High Court made it clear that if parties are claiming that a stay order has been passed, they must submit an affidavit confirming this submission before the case can be adjourned by the trial court or tribunal. 

It also directed the case status should be verified in such cases by using the High Court’s case search facility. If a stay extension is claimed, the party must submit an affidavit along with a copy of the order, within a reasonable time, the High Court added.

The Court added that if a stay has been granted until further orders, then parties must submit an affidavit every three months, confirming that the stay is still valid.

Newly appointed presiding officers were also instructed to avoid postponing cases based on older oral claims, by ensuring that the stay order or affidavit confirming the claim of a stay order is in the case file before any adjournments are given.

Finally, the Court directed the district judiciary to ensure that court proceedings are accurately recorded in the Case Information System (CIS) or Case Management System (CMS)

"The Registrar, District Judiciary will issue strict directions in tune with the above directions to all Principal District Judges of the State including tribunals and other judicial forum under the supervision of this Court along with a copy of this order," the High Court added.

The petitioners were represented by advocates G Santhosh Kumar (P) and Jeevan Balakrishnan.

Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the State.

[Read Order]