AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kant and Shabihul Hasnain, JJ.—Heard Sri S.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned State Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Sakha Ram Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.
By means of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, only a direction has been issued that case No. 302 of 2008 filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and case No. 390 of 2008, filed under section 125, Cr. P.C. be decided within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is served on the opposite party.
Despite repeatedly being asked as to what prejudice can be said to have been caused to the litigants if the cases have been directed to be decided expeditiously, particularly when they relate to matrimonial disputes, learned Counsel for the appellant could not give any satisfactory answer.
We would also like to place on record that no litigant or any lawyer can insist that his case should not be taken up early and they should be unnecessarily lingered or delayed because he does not want to do it. The fear of getting adverse order would also not permit a lawyer to delay the hearing of the case or to take lame excuses for adjournment of the case. Any such attempt cannot be tolerated or appreciated. The present appeal appears to be one of such examples.
Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that in such a short time, due opportunity of hearing would not be afforded to the appellant. It is a mere apprehension. If the parties and their Counsel cooperate, we see no reason why due opportunity of hearing will not be given to them.
The impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.