The learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, states, on instructions received that the petitioner is depositing the interim maintenance as ordered by the court below since April 2013. In case, the said such statement is correct, the application of the petitioner to expedite the proceedings may be considered by the court below.
The plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court to expedite the suit no.965 of 2009 (Ajay Kumar versus Smt.Deepa) pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, has made the following observations:-
".................It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
In view of the decision in the case of Km.Shobha Bose versus Judge Small Causes Court 2010(1) ADJ 531 (DB). It is not proper to issue any positive direction for time bound disposal of any proceedings without ascertaining the position of the workload in the court concern and in the absence of any allegation that the court below is responsible for the delay.
No ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the plaintiff/petitioner in filing appropriate urgency application before the concerned court which shall consider the said application and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 6.5.2014 IB