Mallika Bal Vs Shailesh Jaikab

2 - Smt. Pushpa Jaikab W/o Late M.C. Jaikab Aged About 74 Years R/o Mission Compound, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur

¶13

3 - Smt. Suchita Rai D/o Late M.C. Jaikab Aged About 40 Years R/o Mission Compound, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur

¶14

4 - Shalaj Jaikab S/o Late M.C. Jaikab Aged About 33 Years R/o Mission Compound, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur

¶15

…. Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Applicant : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

19.02.2026

¶22

This is an office reference.

¶23

This MCC has been registered on the basis of the PUD dated 07/02/2026 received from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), through the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby a request has been made for grant of additional time of four months to comply with the order dated 13.8.2024 passed by this Court in WP227 No.668 of 2024 ( wrongly mentioned in the subject matter of PUD as WP227 No.643 of 2017 ) and to conclude the trial in MJC (Cri.) No. 72/2023 (Smt. Mallika Bal Vs. Shailesh Jaikab & Others).

¶24

The present matter pertains to MJC (Cri.) No. 72/2023 (Mallika Bal vs. Shailesh Jaikab & Others), arising out of proceedings under Section 19(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, relating to the provision of rented accommodation to the applicant by the non-applicants. This Court, vide order dated 13.08.2024, had directed conclusion of the proceedings within a period of six months. However, the proceedings were subsequently affected due to the interim stay order dated 31.01.2025 passed in CRMP No. 1119/2022 and the clarification order dated 05.05.2025. In view of the circumstances of the parties and the inability to arrive at a mutual understanding regarding the accommodation, there is a strong likelihood that

¶25

3

¶26

additional time would be required for proper adjudication. As no request for extension was made earlier and the stipulated period has expired, extension of four months’ time has now been sought for just and proper disposal of the case.

¶27

It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court in WP227 No.668 of 2024, the trial Court was directed to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order.

¶28

Upon due consideration of the request made by the learned trial Court and the material placed on record, it is evident that the delay in conclusion of the proceedings was occasioned primarily on account of the intervening stay order passed by this Court and the subsequent clarification order, which were circumstances beyond the control of the trial Court. It also appears that the matter involves adjudication under Section 19(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, requiring due consideration of the rival claims of the parties with regard to provision of accommodation. Therefore, the request for extension of time cannot be said to be unjustified or lacking bona fides.

¶29

In view of the above and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the intervening judicial orders and the nature of the dispute involved, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to grant limited extension of time for conclusion of the proceedings.

¶30

4

¶31

Accordingly, the instant MCC stands disposed of . The time for disposal of the proceedings in MJC (Cri.) No. 72/2023 is hereby extended by a further period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial and pass appropriate orders within the time frame as given supra , strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶34

$. Bhilwar

Mallika Bal v. Shailesh Jaikab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallika Bal v. Shailesh Jaikab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhurandar Builders and Developers Vs Smt. Sohadra Dewangan

Dhurandar Builders and Developers Vs Smt. Maheshwari Dewangan

M. a. Fahim Vs Union of India

Divisional Railway Manager (S.E.C.R) Vs Smt. Bina Kaushik

Smt. Fekan @ Bhojlaiya Bai Vs Hajari Jhariya

Smt. Mahabati and Ors. Vs Heeralal Sinha and Ors.