IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2015
Prahalad Prasad, son of Sri Nakul Prasad, resident of Kamla Niwas,
near Lala Lajpat Rai School, Ganesh Nagar, Pundag, PO PS
Pundag, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Shweta Kumari, wife of Prahalad Prasad and daughter of Sri Manoj
Prasad, resident of Patel Nagar, Harmu Housing Colony, PO PS
Argora, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
Ms. Pooja Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Sweta Kumari, Advocate
04/23.10.2018 Ms. Sweta Kumari, the learned counsel appears for the
2. The petitioner, who has instituted Matrimonial Title Suit
No. 243 of 2013, is aggrieved of the order dated 15.01.2015 by
which the trial court has directed him to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month
as maintenance pendente lite to his wife, besides Rs. 5,000/- for
3. The petitioner has filed affidavit dated 10.10.2018
confining his prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the trial
court for expeditious disposal of the suit. In view of the statement
made in paragraph no. 9 of this affidavit, challenge to the impugned
order dated 15.01.2015 stands withdrawn by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has produced the entire order-sheet in
Title Matrimonial Suit No. 243 of 2013.
5. In support of his stand, that proceeding in Matrimonial
Title Suit No. 243 of 2013 has been prolonged at the instance of the
defendant, the petitioner has produced a chart of the adjournments
sought by the defendant for cross-examination of his witnesses. The
petitioner has pleaded that for cross-examination of P.W. 1, fifteen
adjournments were taken and for cross-examination of P.W. 3 by
now 10 adjournments have already been taken by the defendant;
P.W. 2 was finally cross-examined after five adjournments.
6. Speedy disposal of a suit is the mandate of law.
Amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure are a reflection of the
legislative intendment that it is in public interest that litigation
comes to an end at the earliest. A suit which was instituted in the
year 2013 is still pending today, is an example how the mandate of
law appears not to have been followed during trial of the suit.
However, without making any observation on the conduct of the
parties; who is the defaulting party, I am of the opinion that early
disposal of the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 243 of 2013 must be
ensured by the trial judge, keeping in mind the mandate under Order
XVII Rule 1(2) CPC.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to the trial judge to dispose of Matrimonial Title Suit
No. 243 of 2013 on or before 31.03.2019, without granting
adjournment to any of the parties, but for just excuse.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)