Sanjay Kumar vs N. Palanisamy
2025 Latest Caselaw 786 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar vs N. Palanisamy on 14 July, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                             [2025:JHHC:19156]




      IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             C.M.P. No. 293 of 2025
      Sanjay Kumar, aged 53 years, son of Sri Jagdish
      Prasad Swarnkar, resident of Taratand, Jhumritelaiya,
      P.O. Jhumritelaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma.
                                                      ..... ...     Petitioner
      Archana Burman, wife of Sanjay Kumar and daughter
      of Anil Burman, resident of House No.17, Phase
      No.1, Hill view colony, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O.
      Mango, P.S. M.G.M. Mango, Jamshedpur, District-
      East Singhbhum.

                                                    .....   ...     Opposite Party
                         --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

      For the Petitioner :        Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
                         :        Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate.
      For the sole O.P.  :        Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate
                         ------
05/ 14.07.2025    Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. Avnish Prakhar, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 17.01.2025, passed in Original Suit No. 429 of 2018 by

the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Jamshedpur.

3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of sole opposite

party, who has instituted the said suit under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce. He submits that the said suit

was instituted in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, which was later on transferred to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur on the petition filed by the

sole opposite party before the High Court. He further submits that presently the said suit is running for the argument and in the said suit, a

petition under Order-XVIII Rule-17 and 17(A) of the CPC was filed

[2025:JHHC:19156]

before the learned court, which has been rejected by the learned court by order dated 17.01.2025. He submits that certain documents are required to be brought on record and for that this petitioner was

intended to make further evidence, however, the learned court has erroneously rejected the same. He further submits that in view of the above, an opportunity be provided to the petitioner and the impugned

order may kindly be set aside. To buttress his arguments, he relied in the case of K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy, reported in (2011) 11

SCC 275.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Prakhar, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and

submits that the frivolous petition has been filed before the learned court, which has been rejected by the learned court on a cogent reason.

He submits that the suit has already been proceeded and argument is going on and it is fixed for final argument. He submits that prior to the present petition, another petition was also filed to recall the order dated

19.06.2023 by the petitioner, which has been recalled by the learned court in the interest of justice. He further submits that by order the order dated 06.05.2024, the petitioner was given one more opportunity to

adduce evidence on his part, thereafter, the argument of the opposite party herein has been concluded and the matter has been posted for

argument on behalf of petitioner and thereafter the said petition has been filed and the learned court has rightly passed the said order. He relied in the case of Shubhkaran Singh Versus Abhayraj Singh & Ors.,

reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 772.

5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record including the impugned order, from which, it transpires that by the order dated 15.02.2020, the case was fixed for

petitioner's evidence for the first time on 28.02.2020 and thereafter the

[2025:JHHC:19156]

suit was proceeded and evidence on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner herein was made and finally the evidence was closed on 19.06.2023 after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, but again on 27.07.2023,

a petition was filed by the petitioner praying therein to recall the order dated 19.06.2023 and allow the plaintiff-petitioner to lead evidence and the learned court by the order dated 06.05.2024 has been pleased to

allow the same and recalled and one more chance has also been provided to the petitioner to adduce the evidence and thereafter on

03.06.2024, the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined and thereafter discharged. On that day, some documents were also marked as exhibits. The evidence of P.Ws. have been completed on 15.06.2024

and thereafter the respondent's witness has also been examined, which closed on 30.09.2024 and thereafter the suit has reached to the stage of

final argument. On 21.12.2024, the final argument on behalf of opposite party-defendant has been completed and the matter was fixed on 04.01.2025 for final argument and on the same day, the petition in

question under Order-XVIII Rule-17 and 17(A) of the CPC has been filed, which has been decided by the learned court discussing all the facts and dismissed the same. The learned court has been pleased to

hold that the suit is very old and one after another unnecessary petitions are being filed and in view of that it has been rejected. Thus, it

transpires that the learned court has been pleased to give a cogent reason of rejecting the said petition.

6. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that once the petitioner would have been recalled by the learned court, the petitioner was intended to file certain document. It is

an admitted position that even without filing of any document, the recall of the plaintiff has been sought and the opportunity of recall was already provided to the petitioner earlier, as discussed hereinabove and

when the matter was posted for final argument on behalf of the plaintiff-

[2025:JHHC:19156]

petitioner, the said petition was filed on 04.01.2025, which clearly suggests that only with the intent to delay the proceeding, the said petition has been filed before the learned court at that stage.

7. In view of the above, it is crystal clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that the plaintiff-petitioner has seriously created obstacles at every stage during the trial and virtually prevented

the court from proceeding with the suit. This is one of the example as to how an ordinary suit moves in our courts. Some litigants on one

ground or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the matter.

8. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing

acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of

such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the litigants and the courts are being blamed of arrears of cases.

9. Petition under Order-XVIII Rule-17 and 17(A) of the CPC

the power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by a court, however, at the same time, that power cannot be exercised lightly and it is required to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases and it is

required to exercise only for removing ambiguities for clarifying the statement and not for the purpose of filling up the lacuna in parties case.

Rule-17A in the said Order has already been omitted w.e.f. 01.07.2002.

10. What has been discussed hereinabove and how the case has proceeded before the learned court and in spite of providing full

opportunity, one petition was filed, which has been allowed by the learned court and the matter further proceeded and argument of the

defendant-opposite party has been concluded and it was posted for the argument of plaintiff-petitioner and at that stage, the said petition has been filed that too in absence of any document, which clearly suggests

that with intention to delay the suit, the said petition has been filed.

[2025:JHHC:19156]

11. The judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of K.K. Velusamy (Supra) is not in dispute and in that case, the learned court has mechanically dismissed the

application and in view of that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the said order. So far the case in hand is concerned, the learned court has given the cogent reason and thereafter passed the order.

12. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, this petition is dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-

[A.F.R.]