Dismissed

Surendra Singh v. Mamta Kanwar

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2024CW/13261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of a divorce application before the Family Court, Jodhpur. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that such directions should be issued sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances, noting no evidence of inordinate delay in the underlying proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Stay petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Surendra Singh Vs Mamta Kanwar — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33864]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13261/2024

¶4

Surendra Singh S/o Manohar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Village Khariya Mithapur, Rajputo Ki Dhani, Jodhpur, Presently R/ Police Line, Quarter No. G.f. 02, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mamta Kanwar D/o Kalyan Singh W/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Village Rampuriya Bhatiyan, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, Presently R/o 22, Tirupati Nagar, Nandri, Banar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

14/08/2024

¶13

The present petition has been preferred with the sole prayer that the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur be directed to decide the application (Case No.214/2023) as preferred by the petitioner-applicant under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 expeditiously.

¶14

In the opinion of this Court, in absence of any statistics regarding the institution, pending and disposal of the cases before the concerned Court, no sweeping direction can be passed to decide a particular case on priority. Passing such order, in the opinion of this Court, would interfere with the cause list of the concerned Court and the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters.

¶15

As observed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba; 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) , it would be most inappropriate of the Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the

[2024:RJ-JD:33864]

[CW-13261/2024]

(2 of 3)

Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or great antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Therein, the Court further observed as under:

¶20

“Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest case and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expenses of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

¶21

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disability socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.”

¶22

A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge Small Causes & Ors.; 2011 (88) ALR 850 wherein the Court observed as under:

¶23

“We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:33864]

[CW-13261/2024]

who are waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be countenanced.”

¶28

So far as the present petition is concerned, admittedly

¶29

the application under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred in the month of March 2023. As per the order-sheets (Annx.3), the service on the respondent itself was completed in the month of July 2023. The reply was filed by the respondent on 09.01.2024. Issues were framed on the very next date, i.e. 05.03.2024 and the matter was posted for petitioner’s evidence on 01.05.2024. On 01.05.2024, applications preferred by both the parties to be permitted to be represented by amicus curiae were allowed. On that date, time was sought by the petitioner to lead evidence and the matter was posted on 01.06.2024.

¶30

The above mentioned order-sheets nowhere reflect that the proceedings have been delayed inordinately or intentionally.

¶31

In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition and the same is hence, dismissed .

¶32

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶33

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶34

44-Devanshi/-

Surendra Singh v. Mamta Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. Mamta Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L. N. Memorial Para Medical Institute Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bharat Lal Shiv Sahay and Sons Transport Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawariya Construction Company Vs Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

M/S Shri Mangi Lal Vishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Laxmi Devi Vs Adtiya Birla Finance Ltd.

Karamjeet Kaur Vs Naresh Kumar Nagpal