I am fighting in person against a very influential opponent.
Interim order in trial is passed by consent of both parties after hearing in front of magistrate. Magistrate has signed the order and both parties have signed the order. Defendant then files a Writ Petition months later challenging the interim order and seeking some relief against the interim order u/s 226 and 227. HC mentions issue of consent. Defendant says he was not aware of exact contents of order but blindly signed it. I object as Defendant is educated and this is a belated defence.
HC does not record any finding on the issue of consent but grants interim relief sought by the defendant. I think I need to challenge this.
In the meanwhile the trial is continuing and the Defendant is being cross-examined. I find it absurd that the signature denial is taken on record by the HC but no finding passed. Will this not result in an unfair trial? Even the cross-exam has the same procedure - magistrate and defendant sign, and the HC's precedent can be used to nullify the cross-exam admissions too, which is absurd.
Can I file a writ petition and ask for a stay of proceedings of the lower court and ask for the lower court to resolve this matter before proceeding with the trial?
I will be grateful for any help.