IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Vivek Garg …. Petitioner Versus Neha Garg …. Opposite Party Advocates appeared in the case :

For Petitioner : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate along with Mr. D.K. Sethy, Advocate For Opp. Party :

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing : 28.01.2026 Date of Judgment : 28.01.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO :

1. Petitioner husband is before this Court making the following prayer in the petition :

“therefore, prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this writ, issue notice to the Opposite Party and after hearing the parties allow this writ petition directing expeditious disposal of CP No. 240 of 2023 pending before the Court of Learned Family Judge, Rourkela within a fixed period of time along with CP No. 113 of 2023 which is also pending in the self same court as both the cases are ready for final hearing, in the interest of justice.”(sic)

2. Though the matter is listed for fresh admission, in view of the judgment that is going to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case, notice is not issued to the opposite party wife in the marriage. This Cout is also of the view that the judgment that is being passed, would be no way prejudicial to either of the parties to the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order sheet in C.P. NO. 240 of 2023 i.e. petition filed under section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner husband seeking divorce from the opposite party wife in the marriage, to submit that the opposite party is seeking unnecessary adjournments and the proceeding is getting prolonged.

4. On being asked whether the petitioner had ever filed any application before the learned Court in seisin indicating that the opposite party is taking unnecessary adjournment and if so what order was passed therein; learned counsel for the petitioner upon instruction submits that there is no such application.

5. In considered view of this Court, at the instance of a particular litigant, a Civil Proceeding cannot be expedited when thousands of cases are pending before the selfsame Court for adjudication.

For such view this Court relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(s).4758 of 2024: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi versus State of Maharashtra: 2024 INSC 899. Paragraphs of the said judgment relied upon are reproduced herein:

“Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as in many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending. Every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the Courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the litigants. If in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must grant bail.

Option of expediating trial is not the solution.

In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’,¹ this Court has held that in the ordinar