ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order passed in I.A.5 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi dated 10.09.2022.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order passed in I.A.4 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi dated 10.09.2022.

The Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the docket orders passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2016 dated 10.09.2022.

2. The marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnised on 20.01.2002 at Salem as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Two children were born from and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately and the children are with the custody of the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife filed H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2016 for Dissolution of Marriage on several grounds. Pertinently, the Divorce case instituted by the respondent/wife is pending for the past about six (6) years.

3. The trial was in progress and the respondent/wife was present in the Court and ready to subject herself for the cross-examination of the petitioner/husband. While so, the petitioner/husband and his counsel, who were present on that day, had not cross-examined the respondent/P.W-1 and filed a petition thereafter to re-open and re-call the P.W-1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

4. The Trial Court in its docket order recorded that the petitioner wanted to mark some documents. However, the petitioner had not enclosed those documents along with the petition. The petitioner is expected to conduct the case, more so, when the witnesses are ready for examination or cross-examination. The Trial Court further recorded that the learned counsel for the respondent/wife was ready and submitted for the proceedings of the case, since the witness is present very much in the Court. When the P.W-1 and her counsel were present and ready to subject herself for further cross-examination, the petitioner/husband has filed a petition stating that the petitioner is not ready for cross-examining the P.W-1 and further filed a petition seeking permission to mark certain documents and those documents were also not enclosed along with the petition. With the above factual background, this Court has to consider the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Proceedings are to be conducted consistently and by affording opportunity to the parties, so as to ensure disposal is made within a reasonable period of time. If the Divorce proceedings instituted by the respondent/wife herein is kept pending for the past about six (6) years, the parties may not be in a position to decide about their future life. It is most unfortunate that such matrimonial disputes are kept pending before various Courts for an indefinite period either without progress or with slow progress. Such a situation undoubtedly require changes and in this regard, the Trial Courts are directed not to grant unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds and long adjournments are to be avoided. The Trial Courts may regulate the cases by categorising the same on its board and ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.

7. Contrarily, if the parties are allowed to take adjournments at their whims and fancies, then the other party would be prejudiced and such a practice, if any, adopted by anyone of the party is to be thwarted and at no circumstances be encouraged by the Courts.

8. On institution of litigation, the aggrieved litigants are thriving hard to dispose of their respective cases. Non-co-operation of the learned counsels are also to be viewed seriously. If the practice of forum shopping is found, the same has to be viewed seriously and Courts shall not pave way for such practice. Therefore, wh