The Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not grant a stay based solely on the filing of an appeal, the Supreme Court division bench led by Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli noted on January 24. 

In this case, the petitioner went to the Patna High Court to request that the District Magistrate issue a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) for the opening of an MS/HSD retail outlet dealership over property. The High Court rejected the petition on the grounds that although an appeal was filed in the petitioner's favour with the High Court, a hearing date had not yet been set. To challenge this decision, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench observed that it was unjustified for the High Court to have rejected the argument on this grounds.

"Keeping in view the provisions as contained in Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, unless the appeal is listed and there is an interim order, the mere filing of the appeal would not operate as a stay. If that be so, the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2021 would ensure to the benefit of the petitioner as on today and the rejection of the NOC only on the ground that the appeal has been filed, would not be justified."

Following the court's approval of the appeal, the District Magistrate is required to take notice of the ruling and provide the petitioner with the NOC within two weeks. It was stated explicitly that this would depend on the outcome of the appeal currently before the High Court.

Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19038/2022

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR
Mr. Manish Shrivastav, Adv.
Ms. Poonam A, Adv.
Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR
 Mr. T. G. Shahi, Adv.