Courts should not impose strict timelines for case resolutions; such decisions must be left to trial court discretion unless extraordinary circumstances necessitate otherwise.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the petition filed by him vide O.P.No.641 of 2023, pending on the file of II-Additional Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Ms.Naseem Ara, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Rishi Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally petitioner has filed the O.P before the Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and the same was numbered as O.P.No.407 of 2021; that on the transfer petition filed by the respondent, it was transferred to the II-Additional Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad, and re-numbered as O.P.No.641 of 2023. She further submitted that though the O.P was filed in the year 2021, there is no much progress in the O.P, therefore, seeks direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the O.P.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [(2024) 6 SCC 267], no time line can be fixed for disposal of the case by the trial Court and especially referred to Para Nos.42 and 43, which reads as hereunder:

“42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out of turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

43. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time-frame. In a sense, no court of law is inferior to the other. This court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the courts concerned unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that respondent has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the counter filed in O.P.No.641 of 2023, and the same is pending. He also submitted that in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court cannot fix time for disposal of the matter by the trial Court.

6. This Court is in complete agreement with the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court that orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations, and giving priority to certain cases, should be best left to the trial Courts concerned.

7. Perusal of the record discloses that the O.P was filed in the year 2021, initially before the Family Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, and the same was transferred to II-Additional Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad, on transfer petition filed by the r