If any step
is taken by any subordinate Court having ordinary normal jurisdiction in
ignorance of any order of a superior Court, the subsequent orders passed by the
subordinate Court are not ipso facto null and void. They will stand unless they
are either recalled or are set aside.
Harsamukhi Sinha Vs. Maharaja Sashi Kanta (1955) 7 DLR 473 (475 rg.h.col).
ex parte order of stay is a valid order it does not ipso facto, nullify all the
proceedings of the court of the first instance passed subsequently. If the
Court comes to know of the order of the superior court, it should always act on
the orders of the superior Court and the question is not a communication only,
but is one of knowledge of the Court with this knowledge be direct or redirect As soon as a
subordinate Court is satisfied of the existence of such an order of a superior
Court, it must act on it.
Harsamukhi Sinha Vs. Maharaja Sashi Kanta (1955) 7 DLR 473 (475 ri.h.col).
be said that the moment an order for stay of proceedings is pronounced, that
operates as staying the hands of the trial Court. The effect of the order for
stay passed by the superior Court upon an order of trial Court in contravention
of the order for stay is irregular and not a nullity.
Harsamukhi Sinha Vs. Maharaja Sashi Kanta (1955) 7 DLR 473 (475 rt.h.col).
order, either of stay or of injunction which stands almost on the same footing,
has been made by a superior Court, it does not render void all orders made .or
acts done by the subordinate Court subsequent to such an order but before it is
actually communicated they merely render such subsequent orders or acts
Vs. Ezhar Mia. (1956) 8 DLR 82.