ORDER : AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J. 1. This revision is directed against the docket order dated 1.2.2019 passed by the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present revision, are as follows. 2A. Petitioner herein instituted the above mentioned suit against respondents, praying for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale and permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the said original suit on merits and awarded costs to the respondents-defendants. For realization of the said costs awarded by the Trial Court, 1st respondent/1st defendant filed EP No. 3 of 2005. As against dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court, to the extent of awarding costs, the petitioner preferred appeal suit vide ASSR No. 6444 of 2005, before this Court, and alongwith the said appeal suit, he also filed an application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. This Court, vide order dated 16.6.2005 in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said appeal, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is pending consideration before this Court, and the stay granted, as mentioned supra, is still subsisting. 2B. While the things being so, a Memo came to be filed before the executing Court on behalf of 1st respondent, and the learned Judge passed the following order. "This memo is closed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the learned Counsel for the respondent/JDR and the JDR is not present, by accepting the memo. The JDR is called absent, counter is not filed. The stay stood vacated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Law v. C.B.I., Crl. A. No. 1375, 1376/13, dated 23.3.2018, since the stay in this case was passed on 16.6.2005 in ASMP No. 1097/05 by the High Court. Hence right to file counter is for fated. To secure the presence of JDR to proceed with means enquiry the learned Counsel for DHR seeks time to take steps. Call on 1.2.2019." Subsequently, the learned Judge passed the following docket order on 1.2.2019. Hence right to file counter is for fated. To secure the presence of JDR to proceed with means enquiry the learned Counsel for DHR seeks time to take steps. Call on 1.2.2019." Subsequently, the learned Judge passed the following docket order on 1.2.2019. "Learned Counsel for petitioner/DHR filed petition to issue arrest warrant under Section (sic Order) 21 Rule 37(2) CPC for condone mean enquiry. Hence issue Arrest Warrant to conduct mean enquiry against the JDR who is not regarding to the notice on payment of process by DHR is 3 days returnable by 8.3.2019." In the above back ground, challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the said docket order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed before this Court. 3. In the present revision, this Court, in IA No. 2 of 2019, passed the following order. "This petition is filed to suspend the order dated 1.2.2019 passed in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel points that initially an order was passed in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005 granting an interim stay pending further orders. On 23.1.2019 Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam held that the stay granted is automatically vacated in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC). It is the contention of the learned Counsel that Asian Resurfacing's case (supra), applies only to the cases pending trial and that the six months dead line fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly talks of trial being stayed in the Trial Court. It is his contention that the order that is passed by this Court in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005 exercising its statutory power as an appellate Court and that the provisions of Order 41 etc., would not apply and are not relevant in this situation. It is his further contention that only if the trial is stayed, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or the subsequent memo issued by the High Court would apply. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Counsel has made out a prima facie case for interference at this stage. It is his further contention that only if the trial is stayed, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or the subsequent memo issued by the High Court would apply. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Counsel has made out a prima facie case for interference at this stage. In this view of the matter, there shall be suspension of the order dated 1.2.2019 passed in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for a period of eight weeks from today. In this period of eight weeks, learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry, positively by 15.4.2019. List on 15.4.2019." 4. On the directions of this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner caused notice to 1st respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due. Track record of Department of Posts, which shows that 1st respondent did not claim it on 25.2.2019, is filed before this Court by the learned Counsel by way of a Memo dated 27.2.2019. There is no representation on behalf of 1st respondent. 5. Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the material available before the Court. 6. The principal contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision is that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC), is not applicable to the case on hand and the learned Judge erred in applying the principle laid down in the said judgment. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel, in elaboration, that the question of expiry of stay after six months would arise, as per the abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the cases where there is stay of trial, but not otherwise. The learned Counsel has also placed on record 2 judgments of the Karnataka High Court i.e., in RFA No. 1344 of 2012, dated 15.3.2019 and WP Nos. 100648-100649 of 2019, dated 10.1.2019, in support of his contention. 7. The learned Counsel has also placed on record 2 judgments of the Karnataka High Court i.e., in RFA No. 1344 of 2012, dated 15.3.2019 and WP Nos. 100648-100649 of 2019, dated 10.1.2019, in support of his contention. 7. In the above background, now, the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court in the present civil revision petition are- (1) Whether the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is justified in applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited's case (supra), to the case on hand? and (2) Whether the Court below is correct in issuing arrest warrant under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 8. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Paragraph Nos. 37 and 38, ruled as under: "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. 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. 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 Section 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. 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. 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. A reading of the abovementioned paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court demonstrates, in vivid and clear terms, that contingency of expiry of stay after six months would arise only in cases where there is stay of trial. In the instant case, such contingency does not exist. Admittedly, when the petitioner herein approached this Court by way of filing appeal in ASSR No. 6444 of 2005, this Court, vide order dated 16.6.2005 in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. According to the learned Counsel, the said stay is still operating and subsisting. When a similar issue cropped up before the Karnataka High Court in execution, the Karnataka High Court, after elaborately considering the issue, held in its order dated 10.1.2019 in WP Nos. 100648-100649/2019, that the executing Court cannot proceed to execute judgment and decree which is stayed and categorically held that if any appellate Court in any regular appeal or second appeal grants an interim stay of impugned judgment and decree, either of the Trial Court or of the first appellate Court, as the case may be, then, so long as the stay of the execution of the decree remains in force, there can be no execution of the judgment and decree. In the said judgment, the Karnataka High Court also observed that the Trial Court or any other Court subordinate to the High Court, cannot insist that there has to be further order made by the High Court continuing the stay of such orders on the expiry of six months from the date on which stay order was passed. The said principle was reiterated by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in its order dated 15.3.2019 in RFA No. 1344 of 2012. 10. The said principle was reiterated by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in its order dated 15.3.2019 in RFA No. 1344 of 2012. 10. Having regard to the above reasons, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt to hold that the docket order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, which is impugned in the present revision cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 1.2.2019 passed by the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998. It is made clear that till the order dated 16.6.2005 in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005 in ASSR No. 6444 of 2005 remains in force, the executing Court cannot proceed further with the execution petition. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the civil revision petition shall stand closed in consequence.