Gajendra Singh Rawat vs Monika Rawat

Lok Pal Singh, J

By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks writ in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun to decide Original Suit No. 423 of 2018, Gajendra Singh Rawat vs. Smt. Monika Rawat, expeditiously.

The case of the petitioner is that he filed the aforesaid case on 08.05.2018 and after lapse of one year the suit is in its initial stage and issues have not been framed till yet. It is submitted that every petition under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of the notice on the respondent.

For kind reference section 21-B(2) is extracted hereunder:-

21B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act. -

(2) Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent.

It is evident from the order sheet that the Judge, Family Court, though, have not granted much adjournment in the case but while granting adjournment, sufficient reasons have not been recorded. Adjournment is not the matter of right. It is the duty of the court to consider the adjournment to the party if sufficient reasons are shown to grant the adjournment.

This Court has occasion to see the method and manner of adjourning the case in the subordinate court. In most of the cases, order is like; adjournment application is receive. Granted. Put up on the date fixed. The manner the subordinate courts are granting repeated adjournment to the parties without recording its reason and ignoring the provision of Order 17 of Code of Civil Procedure is not permissible, more particularly the courts are not taken not of the proviso to the Order 17 of C.P.C.

Order 17 of CPC is extracted hereunder:

"Court may grant time and adjourn hearing:- The court may , if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit."

The courts, in a casual manner, without having considered the fact that whether grounds, seeking adjournment is sustain or not, allowed the adjournment application in a routine manner, which is absolutely illegal and improper. If such practice of granting of adjournment permitted to be continued in judicial proceedings, it would amount that the court granting the adjournment unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides speedy justice. If adjournment, in a cursory manner, without recording reasons is permitted in the court below, definitely, it gives unnecessary life to the litigation between the parties. The practice of grant of adjournments in such a fashion is being deprecates by the Hon'ble Apex Court several times but despite directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the High Courts time to time, the subordinate courts are not taking care of the directions issued in this regard which ultimately increasing backlogs of the cases in the court, as it consumes valuable time of the Courts.

Thus, this Court is of the view that general directions be issued to the subordinate courts that unnecessary adjournment be avoided during the pendency of the cases. If adjournment application is filed, the court may adjourn the matter, after being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to adjourn the matter, but also keep in mind that the court shall not allow adjournment to a party more than three in numbers. The Court shall also keep in mind the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the cases which are pending for last more than 5 years should be decided on priority basis.

Having considered the facts of the present case and the routine practice of granting the adjournments in subordinate courts, this Court is not happy with such trend, and feels it just and proper to issue general directions to the subordinate courts of Uttarakhand that the trial court shall record the reasons when the adjournment is being granted. The subordinate courts shall also keep in mind the proviso of Order 17 of C.P.C. and the general directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court to decide the old cases shall be given preponderance.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Registrar General of this High Court is directed to circulate the copy of this judgment to the subordinate courts for its compliance.