Munsi Abdul Sarfaraj @ vs Halima Khatun .... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2710 Ori

Orissa High Court

Munsi Abdul Sarfaraj @ vs Halima Khatun .... Opposite Party on 20 March, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No. 8443 of 2026

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.

Munsi Abdul Sarfaraj @
Munci Abdul Sarfaraj Alli     ....                                     Petitioner
                        Versus
Halima Khatun                 ....                               Opposite Party

     Advocates appeared in the case :

        For Petitioner : Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra, Advocate


CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                 JUDGMENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing : 20.03.2026 Date of Judgment : 20.03.2026

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO :

1. Petitioner husband is before this Court making the following prayer in the petition :

"Under these circumstances, the petitioner prays that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to consider the facts stated in this petition, admit the same , issue notice to the 0pp. Party, call for the records and calling upon her to file show cause as to why this W.P.(C) Petition shall not be allowed if she fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, this application may kindly be allowed and the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore may kindly be directed to dispose of the C.P. No. 791/2022 within a stipulated period for secure ends of justice.

And/or pass any other order/orders, direction

/directions as may be deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioner.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

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, notice is not issued to the opposite party wife in the marriage. This Cout 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 order sheet in C.P. No. 791 of 2022 i.e. petition filed under Section 307 of Mulla's Mohammadan Law dissolving the marriage by way of decree of divorce, filed by the petitioner-husband, 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 there is no such application.

5. 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.

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:

"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-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;"

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 made in the concurring view of Mithal, J. at paragraph-57 from High Court Bar Association, Allahabad1 (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 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."

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

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

rendered in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi (supra) were made while discussing fundamental right of accused persons to expeditious trial when they are incarcerated due to 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, the present case being a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife in the marriage.