IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.8811 of 2026 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

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

Tapas Kumar Rout … … Petitioner -Versus-

Priyanka Nayak … … Opp. Party Advocates appeared in the case:

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sahu, Advocate For Opp. Party :

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

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

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

Decided on 23^rd March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

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

“It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(i) Admit the writ application;

(ii) Call for the records;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus in directing the Learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak to expedite the hearing and dispose of the matrimonial proceeding being C.P. Case No.219 of 2021 within a stipulated period;

And pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

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, no notice is issued to the opposite party-wife in the marriage. This Court 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 copy of the order sheet in C.P. No. 219 of 2021 annexed to the writ application C.P. has been filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner-husband seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of 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 no such application has been filed by the petitioner.

5. In considered view of this Court, at the instance of a particular litigant, a Civil Proceeding cannot be expedited when hundreds 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 Asso