1 2025:CGHC:25156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 506 of 2025  Satyanarayan Vaishnav (Peti. In Person) S/o Madhusudan Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Sharma Vihar, Khamtarai, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. At Present Resident Of Dhuripara Mangla, P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Kunjika Vaishnav @ Karuna W/o Satyanarayan Vaishnav Aged About 31 Years D/o Bharat Das Vaishnav, R/o Durgapara Belsara, Pali, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) Petitioner-in-Person : Mr. Satyanarayan Vaishnav Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 06.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Bilaspur Chhattisgarh to expeditiously complete the proceeding and decide his pending Civil Suit No. 680A/2024 within time frame of 4 month according to law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The Petitioner in Person would submit that an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed against the respondent and the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.19 10:08:39 +0530 2 same is pending consideration since 10.09.2024. Thus, he would pray that a direction may be issued to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 680 A/2024 pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) within a stipulated time. 3. I have heard Mr. Vaishnav and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Prema Joy and another v. John Britto and other connected matters in OP(RC) Nos. 74 of 2023 & 83 of 2023 on 22.05.2023 observed in para 5 and 6 as under:- “5. Ordinarily, the disposal of a case in Courts must be as per the seniority, namely chronological basis, and deviation from that must be an exception on valid and genuine grounds. No litigant should normally be allowed to jump the queue or steal a march over the other litigants who filed cases earlier. Only if a litigant files an application stating the reason for an early hearing of the case and only if the court is satisfied with the reasons furnished can a case be posted out of turn. This Court had considered a similar issue with respect to the cases pending before the family courts in the State in the judgment in Shiju Joy.A. and others v. OP(RC)Nos.74 of 2023 & 83 of 2023 5 Nisha [2023 (2) KLT 193] and also in OP(FC)No.148 of 2023. In most cases filed before this Court with prayers for expeditious disposal, it has become a routine practice of this Court to call for reports from the lower courts and issue directions to dispose of the proceedings in a time-bound manner. The Presiding officers are compelled to give a time frame for disposal, disregarding the pendency of much older cases. This works out injustice to those who cannot approach this Court for such reliefs and to all litigants waiting in the queue. 6. As rightly noted by the Division Bench in Shiju Joy.A. and others (supra), such directions for out-of-turn disposals can cause injustice to many who had approached the lower courts earlier, and the persons getting directions from this Court gain undue advantage in getting those cases to be disposed of on priority basis. The report in the instant case noticed above shows the volume of work and, resultantly, the stress and pressure on the Presiding Officers burdened with a huge backlog. Because a litigant has the resource to 3 approach this Court with a prayer to expedite his case, he should not be allowed to break the queue and get an undue advantage unless the situation warrants. We are also mindful of Section 24 of the Act, which directs the Rent Control Court, as far as it may be practicable, to pass final orders in proceedings before it within four months from the date of appearance of the parties thereto. On account of this statutory prescription/legislative hope as well, a direction by this Court to give an out-of-turn hearing should not normally be done unless the situation warrants. To remedy the above situation, which results in gross injustice, besides unfair treatment to litigants, the following directions are issued for strict compliance by the Rent Control Courts and the Rent Control Appellate Authorities in the State.” 5. In the present matter, the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 10.09.2024 and approached this Court in the month of June 2025. In the matter of Prema Joy (supra), it is held that no litigants normally be allowed to jump the queue over the other litigants who filed cases earlier before the concerned Court below and nowadays, in most of the cases, the litigants come before this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the pending cases before the Court below and it has become a routine practice to seek such direction and such direction for out of turn disposal can cause injustice to the other litigants seeking justice before the learned trial Courts. 6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law discussed above, I am not inclined to grant any direction for early disposal of the aforesaid case. 7. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant