Orissa High Court
Tapas Kumar Rout vs Priyanka Nayak … … Opp. Party on 23 March, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
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
JUDGMENT
——————————————————————————
Decided on 23rd 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 matrimonialPage 1 of 6
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
W.P. (C) No.8811 of 2026 Page 2 of 6
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 Maharashtra1: 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
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:
“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary
course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound1
2024 INSC 899W.P. (C) No.8811 of 2026 Page 3 of 6
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;”
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.
The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
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.”
(Underlined to supply emphasis)
6. 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 and 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 High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad2 (SCC Online print):
“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 drives2
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2024) 6
SCC 267W.P. (C) No.8811 of 2026 Page 4 of 6
out the useful work. Accordingly, it is expedient in the
interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order
on
ce 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.”
7. Significantly, above observation of the Hon’ble Apex
Court by the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad (supra) reiterated in the
subsequent decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv
Suryavanshi (supra) were made in Sangram (supra) while
discussing right of accused persons for expeditious trial
when they are incarcerated due to long pendency of the
criminal trial.
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 dispute between the petitioner-husband and
the opposite party-wife in the marriage.
3
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
W.P. (C) No.8811 of 2026 Page 5 of 6
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.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned
Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak to be placed on record of C.P.
No.219 of 2021 pending adjudication.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 23rd March, 2026/Jyostna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Mar-2026 18:01:10
W.P. (C) No.8811 of 2026 Page 6 of 6