AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J.
This CMP has been filed by the Defendant No.2 in Civil Suit No.43 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri, praying for a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the suit within a stipulated time.
Neither the “synopsis” nor the “list of dates” are in order as they do not contain the necessary information. “Synopsis” and “list of dates and events” are required to be filed to assist the Court in disposal of the case. It is unfortunate that many learned counsel have made a mockery of this requirement and consider this to be a formality and file these two documents without necessary details , only to avoid defects being pointed out but the Stamp Reporter.
In the present case, the status of the parties is mentioned in the synopsis and in the list of dates, one year and one date have been mentioned. It has been stated that the plaint has been filed in 2023 and on 18.07.2025 written statement has been filed. As a proper synopsis and date chart have not been filed, I had to go through the entire CMP and the annexures, resulting in wastage of Court time.
Annexurer-5 series contains orders passed on 21.09.2024 till 20.06.2026 in the Civil Suit. Perusal of the orders reveals that on 24.09.2024, the Defendant No.3 had filed a petition for acceptance of the written statement. No objection to the same was filed by the Plaintiffs. The said application was allowed and the written statement of Defendant No.3 has been accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/- to the plaintiffs. Cost has been paid on 26.11.2024 and the written statement filed by the Defendant No.3 has been accepted. The case was adjourned to 07.01.2025 awaiting PA against Defendant No.5. On 07.01.2025, the Court observed that the case was inadvertently posted for awaiting PA instead of filing of fresh steps against Defendant No.5 and case was accordingly adjourned to 11.02.2025 for filing of fresh steps against Defendant No. 5. It was adjourned from 11.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 11.04.2025 and 19.06.2025 for the same purpose even though no application was filed by the plaintiffs praying for time to take steps. There is also no order till 20.06.2026 that fresh steps had been filed.
On 18.07.2025, written statement was filed on behalf of Defendant No.2 (present petitioner) along with two separate petitions under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC and under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC. The case was adjourned to 19.08.2025 for filing of objection and hearing on the aforesaid petition. The matter was thereafter listed on 19.08.2025, 16.09.2025, 24.10.2025, 22.11.2025, 24.12.2025, 09.02.2026, 12.03.2026, 23.04.2026 and 20.06.2026 for filing of objection.
Annexure 7 is copy of the order sheet in I.A. No. 28 of 2023, containing orders passed on 05.09.2023, 18.09.2023, 07.10.2023, 30.10.2023 and order dated 05.12.2025. The I.A has been dismissed on 05.12.2025 for default, as no steps were taken on behalf of the petitioners and the matter had been lingering for hearing since long.
Ms. Mohapatra learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, objection has not been filed by the plaintiff to the petitions filed by the Defendant No.2 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC and under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC filed for acceptance of written statement, but the case is being adjourned mechanically without sufficient reason for filing of objection by the plaintiffs, causing financial difficulty and immense harassment to the petitioner. She therefore prays that the learned trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit within a specified time.
In view of the nature of order, I propose to pass, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the Opposite Parties.
In the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“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. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, 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;” (underline supplied) 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.”
It is therefore no longer res integra that the High Court is not expected to issue direction in a routine manner to the learned trial courts for disposal of any case within a specified time. The concerned Court is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on its board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.
In view of the above discussion, I am not satisfied that any direction should be issued presently to the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit within a particular period.
But as it is apparent that the two petitions filed under Order 9 Rule 7 and under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, by the petitioner for acceptance of written statement, are pending since more than one year, I deem it proper in the interest of justice to direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the two petitions after affording only one more chance to the plaintiff for filing objection. I also deem it proper to direct the learned trial court to proceed with the suit without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.
It is also directed if fresh steps have not been filed against Defendant No.5, appropriate orders in that regard should also be passed.
The CMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Copy of this order be communicated to the learned trail Court by the Registry forthwith.