##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 2717 of 2026

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)

W.P.(C) No. 2717 of 2026

Page 1 of 5

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

W.P.(C) No. 2717 of 2026

Page 2 of 5

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