JUDGMENT : Suneet Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the opposite party. 2. The instant contempt petition has been filed on the allegation of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 12 November 2009 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 16108 of 2009 (Shri Niwas Daga Versus State of U.P. and another). The order reads thus: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Applicant is directed to serve respondent no 2 through RPAD within a week from today. Respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within three weeks. List this application in the second week of may, 2010. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the Case No. 40 of 2009 , under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Marwadeeh, District Varanasi shall remain stayed against the applicant." 3. The facts, briefly stated, is that an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and two other persons on 23 December 2017. The allegation against the applicant was that an agreement to sale was executed by him in collusion with one of the accused, thereby, he tried to dispose of the property of the complainant. Upon investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge sheet on 12 January 2009. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was instituted assailing the cognizance/summoning order and the charge sheet, wherein, the order dated 12 November 2009 came to be passed by this Court. 4. It is urged that the contesting opposite party/complainant has put in appearance and filed stay vacation application some times in 2010. The matter is still pending decision. 5. It is informed by learned counsel for the opposite party that in the pending petition the applicant preferred several listing applications and finally the matter was listed on 28 January 2015, however, the interim order was not extended by the Court. In the meantime, pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC Online (SC) 310, the Registry of this Court vide Circular dated 26.04.2018, addressed to all judicial officers subordinate to the High Court, directed them to follow the mandate of the decision scrupulously. The Circular reads thus: "To, All the Judicial Officers, Subordinate to High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. C.L. No. 12 / Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 26.04.2018 Sub : Order dated 28.03.2018 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal Nos 1375-1376 of 2013 titled Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation. Madam/Sir, While hearing the above-mentioned Criminal Appeals, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has directed that in all cases pending before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings is ordered, stay will automatically lapse after six months from the date of such order unless extended by a speaking order on the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide instant judgment. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced. I am, therefore, directed by Hon'ble Court to enclose herewith a pdf copy of above-mentioned judgment along with the instant circular letter with the request to go through the judgment carefully and follow the mandate thereof scrupulously." 6. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12 December 2018 proceeded with the trial by issuing Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) for the reason that more than six months had lapsed but the applicant had not filed any order of this Court extending the stay order by a speaking order in terms of Asian Resurfacing. The applicant is aggrieved by the NBW issued against him. In other words, it is urged that the opposite party/Judicial Magistrate has proceeded with the trial despite stay order of the High Court. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party by passing the order dated 12 December 2018 has wilfully and deliberately flouted the stay order dated 12 November 2019, thereby, committing contempt of court. 8. Reliance has been placed by the respective counsels on paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Asian Resurfacing (supra) which reads thus: "35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced. 36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re- appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced." 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the court below had not granted opportunity to the applicant to produce a speaking order before issuing the NBW, further, the conduct of the opposite party tantamounts to judicial indiscipline in not following the order of the Superior Court staying the trial. 10. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General/Special Counsel for the High Court, in rebuttal, submits that the mandate of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing is binding upon all the courts- civil/criminal and revenue, where the trial of suit/criminal case has been stayed on the strength of a stay order passed by the Superior Court, including, this Court. In the circumstances, after the decision rendered in Asian Resurfacing, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to approach the Superior Court/High Court that had passed the stay order and obtain an interim order in terms of the observation made in Asian Resurfacing. It is not open to the trial court to enter into the question as to whether the interim order is operating or extended by non speaking order. It is not open to the trial court to enter into the question as to whether the interim order is operating or extended by non speaking order. The onus is upon the party in whose favour the stay order is operating to obtain an appropriate speaking order on merits after the decision of Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing. The decision in Asian Resurfacing is judgment in rem and equally binds the litigating party in whose favour the stay order has been passed staying the trial. It was incumbent upon the applicant to have obtained a speaking order from this Court before expiry of six months from the date of passing the stay order. 11. On specific query, the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show from the material placed on record that interim order granted by this Court in 2009 was ever extended. No wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order is made out against the opposite party. 12. This Court in contempt jurisdiction has been receiving repeated petitions making allegations against the presiding officers of trial courts where the trial court has proceeded with the trial in terms of Asian Resurfacing. In my opinion, the contempt petition against the presiding officers of trial court on having proceeded in terms of Asian Resurfacing after lapse of six months, upon having ignored the interim stay, order would not be maintainable. 13. In my opinion, the contempt petition against the presiding officers of trial court on having proceeded in terms of Asian Resurfacing after lapse of six months, upon having ignored the interim stay, order would not be maintainable. 13. The principles that emerge from the mandate of Asian Resurfacing can be summed up as follows: (i) The trial court and the Superior Court is bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing; (ii) It is incumbent upon the party in whose favour the stay order is operating to approach the Superior Court/High Court, as the case may be, and obtain a speaking order in terms of Asian Resurfacing; (iii) In absence of a speaking stay order after a lapse of six months from the date of judgment rendered in Asian Resurfacing or from the date of the stay order whichever is later would not bind the trial court; (iv) Asian Resurfacing is judgment in rem; the aggrieved litigating party is bound to obtain a fresh speaking stay order in terms of the Supreme Court judgment and not wait until the trial resumes after six months; (v) Non speaking order extending the stay, though being an order of the Superior Court/High Court, would not bind the trial court in view of the law declared in Asian Resurfacing; (vi) All interim orders staying the trial would stand automatically vacated after lapse of six months unless extended by a speaking order in exceptional case; (vii) Where the trial court has proceeded with the trial following Asian Resurfacing/High Court Circular, that would not preclude the aggrieved party to the trial to obtain a fresh speaking stay order from the Superior Court/High Court. 14. In the circumstances, the contempt petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the applicant from approaching the Court and obtaining appropriate order on a fresh stay application in terms of Asian Resurfacing. 15. Registrar General to place the order before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for appropriate orders on the administrative side.