RAVI SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent. The short delay of 16 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

(2.) Despite the fact that there were three earlier orders of this Court including a stop order dated 30.6.2009, no counter-affidavit was filed, nor any application seeking extension of time for filing counter-affidavit was moved. A mere oral prayer was made for granting further time to file counter-affidavit.

(3.) There is a distinction between an order granting time for filing counter affidavit or for doing something else and a stop order for the same purpose. If simply time has been granted, it can be enlarged or further time can be granted on oral prayer. But if a stop order has been passed, and still further time is being sought, a proper application supported by an affidavit has to be moved for this purpose giving an explanation, why despite the stop order, a counter-affidavit was not filed or the particular thing was not done within the time fixed by the stop order. If this distinction is not kept in mind, stop orders of this Court would be reduced to a mockery and would cease to have any meaning.