1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 704 of 2025 1. Geeta Bala Abrol W/o Shri Pradeep Abrol, Aged About 58 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Billaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Anshu Abrol, D/o Shri Pradeep Abrol, Aged About 30 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Surname Of Petitioners Is Mentioned As Avrol Instead Of Abrol In Order Annexure P-1) ... Petitioner(s) versus • Pradeep Kumar Abrol S/o Late Rambhajan Abrol, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Umariya, Tehsil Bandhawgarh, District Umariya, Madhya Pradesh (Surname Of Respondent Is Mentioned As Avrol Instead Of Abrol In Order Annexure P-1) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur to expedite the porceedings of Civil Suit No. 12A/2025 “Geeta Bala Abrol and Another vs. Pradep Kumar Abrol” pending before it and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably with such time as this Hon’ble Court may direct, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders in favor of the petitioners against the respondent as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.28 14:09:29 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that applications under Section 20 (3) and Section 3(b)(ii) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 was filed against the respondent and the same is pending consideration since 28.03.2025. Thus, he would pray that a direction may be issued to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 12A of 2025 pending before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) within a stipulated time. 3. I have heard Mr. Tamboli 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 3 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 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 on 28.03.2025 and approached this Court in the month of July 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