Disposed¶38

Smrutirekha Sahu v. Ashis Kumar Sahoo

Orissa HC1 May 2026WP(C)/10247/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedited disposal; time-bound direction refused; out-of-turn hearing; matrimonial proceeding; Family Court Cuttack; Civil Proceeding No.442 of 2024; constitutional courts to refrain from fixing time-bound schedules except in exceptional circumstances; Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi 2024 INSC 899; High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (2024) 6 SCC 267 para 47.3; Mithal J. concurring para 57; Code of Civil Procedure; Family Courts Act; W.P.(C) disposed without notice.

What did the court decide?

No time-bound direction issued to the Family Court; petitioner permitted to move the learned court in seisin of Civil Proceeding No.442 of 2024 for appropriate orders under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Family Courts Act, with both parties directed to cooperate for expeditious adjudication of the pending matters. ¶38

Smrutirekha Sahu Vs Ashis Kumar Sahoo — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct the learned Family Judge, Cuttack to dispose of Civil Proceeding No.442 of 2024 expeditiously, within a stipulated period of three months.

¶15

Court's answer

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.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The principles laid down by the Supreme Court against routine time-bound disposal directions apply equally to other pending cases, including matrimonial proceedings, where parties seek expedition while several such matters are pending before the court.

¶35

Key takeaways

The petitioner may move the court in seisin of the matter for any appropriate order in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Family Courts Act, and both parties shall cooperate for expeditious adjudication of the pending matters.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition seeking a direction to the learned Family Judge, Cuttack for expeditious disposal of Civil Proceeding No.442 of 2024 within three months — declined. Relying on Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 899, and the Constitution Bench decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 6 SCC 267 (para 47.3, and the concurring observation of Mithal, J. at para 57), the Court held that a civil proceeding cannot be expedited at the instance of a particular litigant where thousands of cases are pending before the selfsame court, and that constitutional courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts, doing so only in exceptional circumstances. The petitioner was left free to move the court in seisin for appropriate orders under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Family Courts Act; both parties were directed to cooperate for expeditious adjudication. Petition disposed of without issuing notice to the opposite party.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.10247 of 2026

¶3

Smrutirekha Sahu

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Niranjan Panda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Ashis Kumar Sahoo

¶8

…. Opp. Party

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Order No.

¶13

01.05.2026 Hybrid Mode

¶14

01. 1. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

¶15

“In these circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue notice to the opposite parties and call for the records and hear both the parties and pass order or this Hon’ble Court may direct the learned Family Judge, Cuttack for expeditious disposal of the Civil Proceeding No.442 of 2024 within a stipulated period of time latest by 3 months.

¶16

2. Though the matter is listed for fresh admission, in view of the order that is going to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case, no notice is issued to the opposite party-husband in the marriage. This Court is also of the view that the order that is being passed, would be no way prejudicial to either of the parties to the present writ petition.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil proceeding is kept pending and the direction should be issued to the learned Family Court for expeditious disposal of the same.

¶19

In response the learned counsel for the petitioner, was requested to apprise whether any application has been filed regarding the alleged strategy of the opposite party-wife to delay the matter, drawing attention of the Court to pass appropriate order.

¶20

4. 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.

¶21

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:

¶22

“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

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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.

¶25

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 ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:

¶26

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;”

¶27

A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.

¶28

The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶29

Registry to forward soft copies of this order to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts with a request to them to circulate copies to all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.”

¶30

(Underlined to supply emphasis)

¶31

5. Regarding issuance of direction by the High Court to the courts which are in seisin of the matrimonial proceedings, apart from the observations of the constitution Bench ( supra ) the subsequent decision: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi (supra) reiterating the view as noted above, it would be apt to quote the observation of the concurring view of Mithal, J. at paragraph-57 from the judgment of the constitution Bench in

¶32

High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2024) 6 SCC 267

¶33

“ 57. Sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing injustice. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686 is a clear example of the same. Such a situation created ought to be avoided in the normal course or if at all it arises be remedied at the earliest. In doing so, we have to adopt a practical and a more pragmatic approach rather than a technical one which may create more problems burdening the courts with superfluous or useless work. It is well said that useless work drives out the useful work. Accordingly, it is expedient in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time-bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same.”

¶34

6. Significantly, the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad ( supra ) were reiterated in the subsequent decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi ( supra ) while discussing fundamental right of accused persons to expeditious trial when they are incarcerated due to pendency of the criminal trial.

¶35

7. In considered opinion of this Court the principles laid down and quoted above shall also apply to other cases where trial/adjudication is pending and parties seek to expedite the proceeding, though several such matters are pending before the Court the present case being a matrimonial proceeding between the petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife in the marriage.

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

8 . However, it is directed, the petitioner if so advised may move the learned court in seisin of the matter for any appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Family Courts Act, the same shall be considered and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It is further directed both the parties shall cooperate for expeditious adjudication of the pending matters.

¶38

9 . The petition stands disposed of.

¶39

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶40

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 05-May-2026 19:00:19

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Smrutirekha Sahu v. Ashis Kumar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smrutirekha Sahu v. Ashis Kumar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Mamata Debnath@Nayak Vs Alok Nayak

Santosh Kumar Champati Vs Anima Pradhan

Priya Ranjan Swain Vs State of Odisha

Shovan Kumar Rath Vs Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Chandrasekhar Mishra@Pinku Vs State of Odisha