N.Nanthakumar vs. S.K.P.Lenin Kumar

Facts

The case involves a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) filed to vacate an interim order of stay granted by the High Court. The petitioner, N. Nanthakumar, is seeking to vacate the stay that was granted on November 18, 2025, in CMP(MD)No.18633 of 2025, which was part of a Civil Revision Petition (CRP)(MD)No.3444 of 2025. The first respondent, S.K.P. Lenin Kumar, is the original petitioner in the revision. The Court noted that the Civil Revision Petitioner had obtained an interim order but was subsequently avoiding further proceedings. The petitioner in the vacate stay application was insisting on the vacation of the stay. The matter was listed for hearing on June 11, 2026, after a period of 1.5 months from a previous order on April 30, 2026, during which no alternate arrangements were made by the Civil Revision Petitioner.

Held

The Court held that a litigant cannot obtain an interim order and subsequently avoid proceeding further with the revision. The Court found that the Civil Revision Petitioner had not made alternate arrangements even after 1.5 months from being informed to do so. Consequently, the interim stay granted on November 18, 2025, was vacated. The Court also dismissed CMP(MD)No.18633 of 2025 (the application for stay) and allowed CMP(MD)No.20386 of 2025 (the application to vacate the stay). The Registry was directed to inform the Trial Court about the vacating of the interim order forthwith. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot abuse the process of the court by obtaining an interim order and then deliberately delaying the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order of stay granted on 18.11.2025 in CMP(MD)No.18633 of 2025 should be vacated, considering the conduct of the Civil Revision Petitioner in avoiding further proceedings. This issue turns on the Court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles of procedural fairness. Contentions: Petitioner (N. Nanthakumar): Argued for the vacation of the interim stay, emphasizing that the Civil Revision Petitioner had obtained the stay but was not pursuing the revision further, thereby causing undue delay and obstruction. The petitioner insisted that the stay should be vacated to allow the proceedings to move forward. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State authorities. However, the Commissioner for GST is listed as Respondent No. 54, indicating their potential interest in tax-related matters, though their specific stance on this procedural issue is not detailed.