Bombay High Court
Poonam Jaidev Shroff vs Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff on 9 October, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:43771
901 WPST-33325-25.doc
Salgaonkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33325 OF 2025
Poonam Jaidev Shroff .. Petitioner
Versus
Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff .. Respondent
....................
Mr.Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Ms.Chandana Salgaocar
and Ms.Anisha Nair and Amaya Prajapati i/b Naik Naik & Co. for
the Petitioner.
Mr.Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishwajeet Kapse,
Mr.Sameer Tapia, Ms.Siddhi Doshi and Mr.Rohan Marathe i/b
ALMT Legal for the Respondent.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2025.
P.C.:
1. This Writ Petition assails order dated 04.10.2025 passed below Exhibit 736, appended at Exhibit A page 39 and order dated 22.09.2025 passed below Exhibit 726, appended at Exhibit I page 84 of the Petition.
2. Both Applications are filed by the Respondent-wife before the trial Court. Those Applications are determined rather dismissed with directions, prompting filing of present Writ Petition. Precursor to passing of order dated 04.10.2025 is a substantive order passed by this Court on 29.09.2025 in Writ Petition No.4414 of 2025, which has been considered by the learned trial Court.
1 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 :::
901 WPST-33325-25.doc
3. Husband is the Petitioner before the trial Court, who has sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Issues have been framed on 21.10.2021 as under :-
"1. Whether petitioner proves that respondent treated him with cruelty?
2. Whether there is any impediment under section 34 of the Special Marriage Act, to grant the decree of divorce?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce?
4. Whether petitioner is entitled for permanent custody of minor daughter?
5. What order and decree?"
4. A substantive issue relating to wife's claim for permanent alimony is framed on 21.04.2025 as Issue No.4A as under :-
"Whether the respondent is entitled to the relief of permanent alimony as prayed for? If yes, what amount?"
5. In the above backdrop parties have filed several substantive proceedings, interlocutory applications, writ petitions against each other in the interregnum. Hon'ble Supreme Court being seized with the dispute, on an earlier occasion, by order dated 03.12.2021 expedited the proceedings before the trial Court. Thereafter, by an order dated 18.03.2024, it directed the trial Court to determine and decide the Marriage Petition within a period of six months therefrom. The proceedings were not completed within that time-line and the Family Court sought extension of time to complete the trial. In the meanwhile, Monitoring Committee of this Court also directed the 2 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc Family Court to hear the matter on day-to-day basis. On the same date, i.e. on 18.03.2024, the wife filed application seeking permanent alimony. It was challenged by the husband on the ground of maintainability. By order dated 09.11.2024, objection on maintainability was rejected. On 23.01.2025, challenge thereto in this Court was withdrawn by the Respondent-husband. In that view of the matter, the learned Family Court, by order dated 11.02.2025, held that additional issue will have to be framed and the Application will have to be considered at the stage of final disposal of Divorce Petition. This order is crucial, as learned trial Court has held that the application seeking permanent alimony will have to be considered at the stage of final disposal of the Divorce Petition. Since the husband did not file and disclose his assets and liabilities, wife filed application before the trial Court seeking direction to make disclosure in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr.1. The application was rejected by order dated 31.01.2025 by the learned trial Court. Rejection of this application was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.4414 of 2025. That challenge was upheld by this Court by order dated 29.09.2025, appended at Exhibit J page 88 of the Petition. This Court set aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned trial Court and directed the husband to file his Affidavit of disclosure of 1 2021 2 SCC 234 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc assets and liabilities within a period of three weeks from the date of said order to enable the trial Court to determine the proceedings strictly in accordance with law and as per the directions and guidelines passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). Learned trial Court took cognizance of the directions contained in the order dated 29.09.2025. The three weeks' window granted by this Court to the husband to file his Affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities would come to an end on 18.10.2025.
6. In view of the above development, Respondent-wife filed Application below Exhibit 736, since the trial Court insisted on hearing final arguments in the Marriage Petition forthwith.
7. Mr.Godbole, Senior Advocate represents Respondent-wife. He would argue that Respondent-wife made a request to the learned trial Court by placing on record the order dated 29.09.2025 and persuaded the learned trial Court to allow the husband to file his affidavit of assets, income and liabilities within the three week window period, thereafter adjudicate Issue No.4A relating to the wife's claim for permanent alimony. He would submit that order dated 01.10.2025, passed by this Court while determining Writ Petition Nos.12514, 12515 and 12516 of 2025, inter alia, pertaining to interlocutory applications for discovery, interrogatories and witness summons were directed to be restored with liberty to revive them to 4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc the Respondent-wife, if so advised. In view thereof, he would submit that the learned trial Court was requested by the Respondent-wife to defer hearing of final arguments until the Petitioner's disclosure affidavit was filed and the said applications for discovery, interrogatories and witness summons were re-considered. This was the sum and substance of application filed below Exhibit 736 before the learned trial Court. Mr.Godbole has also drawn my attention to the application filed below Exhibit 726, appended at page 84 of the Petition, which was filed prior in point of time on 22.09.2025. This application was filed by the Petitioner-husband seeking closure of evidence of the Respondent-wife on the premise that Respondent had already led her evidence, examined herself and four other witnesses whose cross-examination stood concluded. It was contended by the Petitioner-husband in this application that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed directions as well as the directions passed by this Court for day-to-day trial, no further latitude be granted to the Respondent-wife and her evidence was be treated as closed. By virtue of order dated 22.09.2025, the learned trial Court directed that evidence of Respondent-wife stood closed and the Marriage Petition to proceed for final arguments on day-to-day basis so as to ensure disposal of the Marriage Petition on or before 29.11.2025 in strict compliance with mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 :::
901 WPST-33325-25.doc
8. Mr.Godbole would submit that if the aforesaid twin orders are seen by the Court, it would imply that the learned trial Court desires to determine the Marriage Petition without determining Issue No.4A between the parties. In this context, he has drawn my attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, wherein the learned trial Court has held that pendency of compliances or notional revival of interlocutory applications cannot justify any further postponement of the final hearing. The learned trial Court has referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 29.08.2025, which granted final extension of three months upto 28.11.2025 for conclusion of the trial and direction to the trial Court to hear and decide the matter within the said period. The learned trial Court has held that it is under a binding constitutional duty to implement that mandate and cannot allow any further dilution of its schedule. However, the learned trial Court, in order to ensure fairness and to give effect to the directions of this Hon'ble Court (As per order dated 29.09.2025) in its proper spirit, has clarified that after the filing or, as the case may be, non-filing of the affidavit of assets and liabilities by the Petitioner (husband) on or before 18.10.2025, the learned trial Court shall grant both parties a limited opportunity to make submissions/arguments confined exclusively to that aspect. It has further held that the said aspect shall be considered in continuation of the final hearing programme fixed by it, so as to preserve the Supreme Court's time-bound mandate for 6 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc disposal of the Petition by 28.11.2025. It has also clarified that this limited opportunity shall not be allowed to reopen the evidence or the merits of the trial already concluded, nor shall it furnish a ground for any adjournment or re-agitation of matters already adjudicated and the hearing shall be restricted to the adjudication of Issue No.4A relating to permanent alimony. Mr.Godbole would submit that the directions contained in the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 of fixing time-bound schedule for the Respondent-wife to commence her final arguments on 06.10.2025 and conclude them on or before 13.10.2025 and, thereafter, Petitioner-husband to advance his final arguments from 14.10.2025 to 18.10.2025 and the matter to proceed strictly on day-to-day basis without any gap is, prima facie, harsh and contrary to the procedural law. He would submit that if final arguments are advanced by the Respondent-wife and are closed without the Petitioner-husband not filing his disclosure and without there being any adjudication on Issue No.4A with regard to permanent alimony, it would result in gross prejudice and injustice rather travesty of justice in respect of the substantive rights of the Respondent-wife before the trial Court. He would submit that the directions contained in the order dated 29.09.2025 are required to be followed by the learned trial Court, since the Petitioner-husband has not challenged the said order any further. He would submit that by virtue of passing the impugned order and determining a time-bound schedule for hearing the Marriage 7 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc Petition between 6th October to 18th October, the learned trial Court has not adhered to the directions contained in the order dated 29.09.2025 in Writ Petition No.4414 of 2025 and the further order dated 01.10.2025 passed in the companion three writ petitions, whereby the learned trial Court would then be required to hear the pending applications pertaining to disclosure, interrogatories and witness summons filed below Exhibits 587, 639, 641, 643, 649, 650, 651 and 652. He would submit that directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and in the case of Aditi alias Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma2 as also of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Bharat P. Deshpande, J.) in the case of Sana Razvi Vs. State of Goa and Ors.3, wherein the Courts have expressly held that the Family Courts must first direct filing of such disclosure affidavit before proceeding with final arguments or passing of orders on alimony or maintenance issue would be rendered completely otiose, if the impugned order is required to be followed. He would submit that the entire crux of the order passed by the learned trial Court in determining a schedule for final hearing before determination of Issue No.4A on which evidence is required to be led by the parties for determination, is solely based upon the determination of time-line by the Supreme Court. He would submit that such circumvention of the procedural law and short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty 2 Criminal Appeal No.3446 of 2023 decided by the Supreme Court on 6.11.2023 3 2024 of M.R. (Criminal) 3039 8 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. He would submit that substantive right of Respondent-wife would be hampered if the time-bound schedule, as determined by the impugned order to begin final arguments in the Marriage Petition is followed without determination of Issue No.4A. Hence, he would persuade the Court to quash and set aside the impugned order and give appropriate directions, keeping in mind the previous orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determination of the proceedings before the trial Court.
9. PER CONTRA, Mr.Naik, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner-husband before the trial Court would persuade me to uphold the impugned order dated 04.10.2025. He would submit that in the backdrop of the directions passed by the Supreme Court on 29.08.2025, granting final extension of three months upto 28.11.2025, the learned trial Court has correctly determined the time-line and the time-bound schedule for commencing with the Final Arguments by reserving the right of the Respondent-wife to pursue Issue No. 4A. He would draw my attention to paragraph 6 of the impugned order stating that substantive right of the wife stands preserved, since the learned trial Court has clarified that directions contained in the High Court Orders dated 29.09.2025 and 01.10.2025 shall be given effect to only after filing of affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities by the Petitioner-husband or non-filing thereof, either on or before 9 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc 18.10.2025 and the trial Court shall grant both parties a limited opportunity to make submissions/arguments confined exclusively to that effect on adjudication of Issue No.4A. He would submit that the learned trial Court has attempted to do justice to both the sides, without trampling upon the right of Respondent-wife. He would submit that operative directions given in the impugned order are passed by the learned trial Court only in view of the directions contained in the Supreme Court's order directing completion of trial within three months. He would submit that by virtue of the impugned order, both the parties were reminded by the trial Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 29.08.2025, has prescribed a final and non-extendable time-lime upto 28.11.2025 for adjudication of the Marriage Petition and any obstruction or evasion or delay by either side will be viewed seriously and dealt with in accordance with law in order to uphold the dignity of the judicial process and timely justice. He has placed the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would submit that all parties before the trial Court are bound by the order of the Supreme Court and keeping that in mind and in that context, the learned trial Court has re- arranged the schedule of final hearing and has directed the parties to commence with the final arguments in the Marriage Petition and simultaneously allowed the Petitioner to file his affidavit, by giving a specific direction to the Petitioner to file the same on or before 10 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc 18.10.2025 and after filing or non-filing of affidavit of disclosure, the Court shall grant both parties limited opportunity to advance their submissions with respect to Issue No.4A. He would, therefore, submit that adequate justice has been done and the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 deserves to be upheld. Insofar as order dated 22.09.2025 passed below Exhibit 726 is concerned, he would submit that by virtue of that order, evidence of the Respondent-wife stands closed and there is nothing wrong in that order passed by the trial Court.
10. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Senior Advocates at bar and perused the record of the case. At the outset, I would like to refer to the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been placed before me by Mr.Naik. The said order, being a short order, is reproduced below for immediate reference :-
"1. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai has addressed a letter dated 07.07.2025 to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Bombay requesting for extension of period for deciding the divorce petition by nine months.
2. Since the divorce petition is pending from 2015, i.e. for almost a decade, we are not inclined to grant such a long extension. We, however, grant three months time from today, by way of a last chance, for deciding the divorce petition.
3. It is made clear that if any party indulges in delaying tactics, the learned Family Judge would draw an adverse inference.
4. The application stands disposed of with the above observations."11 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 :::
901 WPST-33325-25.doc
11. From the above order, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted three months time, by way of last chance, for deciding the Divorce Petition on the request made by the learned trial Court. In this context, the learned trial Court has in paragraph No. 12 held and reminded both the parties that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has prescribed a final and non-extendable time-line upto 28.11.2025 for adjudication of the Marriage Petition. In the present case, it is seen that Issue No.4A was framed by the learned trial Court on 21.04.2025. It has to be therefore adjudicated and heard alongwith the four Issues framed on 21.10.2021 at the time of final hearing. Mr.Naik has argued that if Issue Nos.1 and 3 are decided by the trial Court in favour of the Petitioner-husband, it is only then adjudication and determination of Issue No.4A would arise. That would essentially mean that Issue No.4A will have to be determined after the Marriage Petition is decided. This submission of Mr.Naik is not acceptable, since it would be directly in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) as also the directions contained in the orders dated 29.09.2025 and 01.10.2025 passed by this Court while disposing of the four writ petitions previously.
12. The next issue which I foresee is determination of Issue No.4A simultaneously with commencement of final arguments in the Marriage Petition. Perusal of the impugned order dated 04.10.2025, prima facie, shows that thrust of the learned trial Court is on 12 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc determination of Marriage Petition within a period of three months i.e. by 28.11.2025 at any cost and in that context, the learned trial Court has clarified that directions contained in the orders dated 29.09.2025 and 01.10.2025 can be implemented simultaneously alongwith final arguments in the Marriage Petition. The procedure to be followed by the Court undoubtedly is to be determined by the concerned Court itself, but procedural law as envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code, provides the necessary legal infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. By devising a procedure, which is unknown to law only because of the timeline set by the Superior Court and it is the Supreme Court in this case, is something which will be clearly detrimental to the substantive rights of the parties before the Court. Here in the present case, the learned trial Court has directed commencement of final arguments in the Marriage Petition on the three Issues where the evidence has been led and completed by the parties, but so for as fourth Issue is concerned, namely, Issue No.4A, evidence of Respondent-wife is completed but the evidence of the Petitioner- husband is not completed rather not even commenced and the learned Trial Court has held that it can be dealt with simultaneously or later. Also this is not a case where the time-line decided by the Supreme Court is coming to an end on 18.10.2025. The time-line in fact is coming to an end on 28.11.2025 which is more than one month from 18.10.2025. The direction to the Petitioner-husband is for filing the 13 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc disclosure on or before 18.10.2025. The trial Court, in the impugned order itself, clarifies that the Court shall grant both parties limited opportunity to make submissions/arguments confined exclusively to the aspect of determination of Issue No.4A relating to permanent alimony after 18.10.2025. Once the Trial Court holds thus, then there is no reason as to why the learned trial Court has to direct the parties to commence final arguments in the Marriage petition when in the same Marriage Petition, adjudication on a substantive issue framed by the trial Court itself namely, Issue No.4A is yet to be completed in terms of evidence. If the decision and directions for determination of the time-bound schedule as done by the trial Court is required to be adhered to, it will amount to sacrificing the fairness of trial and principles of natural justice, which are inbuilt in any sustainable procedure envisaged by the Courts. There is no doubt that early and expeditious disposal of proceedings are required to be done especially when this Court or even the trial Court are always bound by the binding directions and decisions of the Supreme Court. Here is a case, where both the parties before me, namely, the husband and wife have been filling repeated applications, challenges to the interlocutory orders passed, before this Court and have also approached the Supreme Court repeatedly. The record speaks for itself. In the aforementioned facts of the present case, if at all for any reason, the learned trial Judge is not able to dispose of the matter within the 14 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc prescribed time period fixed by the Supreme Court or has any reservations or speculation that he may not be able to determine the matter in the timeline set, the appropriate remedy available to him is undoubtedly to ask for extension of time. It is seen that already once the learned Judge has asked for extension of time earlier and may be because of the time decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he has prepared a time-bound schedule and programme, whereby he has directed the parties to commence with final arguments after closure of their evidence and insofar as determination of Issue No.4A is concerned, he has kept a separate window open simultaneously. However, while doing so, the directions contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), inter alia, pertaining to determination of applications for permanent alimony at the stage of final hearing, are completely violated. Presently it is not a case where the time-line fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is coming to an end or will come to an end on 18.10.2025. What has transpired in the last nine months has been documented in the order dated 29.09.2025 while narrating the facts in brief. Both parties have resorted to filing several applications and challenges to the orders therein before the Trial Court and this Court. Hence, in view of the above, if any procedural requirement is attempted to be circumvented in the manner in which it has been attempted to be done by the learned trial Court, by fixing a time-bound schedule and directing commencement of final 15 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc arguments on 3 issues and simultaneously reserving a window for determination of the 4th Issue between the parties, then in the opinion of this Court, it would result in manifest injustice to the Respondent-wife before the trial Court. Though the intent of the learned trial Court may be pious and praiseworthy, especially when it is repeatedly seen that the directions contained in the Supreme Court's order are reiterated by the trial Court in the impugned order, still the Court will have to act within the four corners of law and cannot bypass the procedure established by law. All that the learned trial Court has to do is to proceed expeditiously on a day to day basis with the case after 18.10.2025, when the time-frame for filing of the disclosure affidavit of assets and liabilities comes to an end. But to direct the parties to commence with final arguments on three Issues before the trial Court and simultaneously direct the parties to comply with the procedure for adjudication of the fourth Issue, is a procedure which is unknown to law. Such a procedure does not have sanction of any law. It is the basic principle of law, which is long settled that, if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In this regard a reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors.4. Paragraph 35 of the said decision reads thus :-
4 (2008)9 SCC 177 16 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc "35. It is by now a certain law that on action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Concil of Kerala [(1999) 3 SCC 422] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp.432-33, paras 31-32) "31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylore [(1875) 1 Ch D 426] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmand V. King Emperor [(1936) 63 IA 372 :
AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)] who stated as under : (IA pp.381-82) "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all'
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case (supra) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law."
13. Attention is also invited to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan5. Paragraphs 8 and 14 of the said decision of the Supreme Court are relevant and are quoted below :-
"8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.
... ... ...
14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. Short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc safeguards and substantive rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and need to be discouraged."
14. The determination of time-bound schedule in the manner which has been done by the learned trial Court for commencement of final arguments on three Issues in which evidence has been led and directing adjudication of fourth Issue simultaneously is something, which this Court will have to interfere with.
15. Attention is also invited to the decision in the case of Rani Kusum (Smt) Vs. Kanchan Devi (Smt) and Ors.6. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below :-
"6. The Code of Civil Procedure enacted in 1908 consolidated and amended the law relating to the procedure of the courts of civil judicature. It has undergone several amendments by several Acts of the Central and State Legislatures. Under Section 122 CPC the High Courts have power to amend by rules, the procedure laid down in the orders. In exercise of these powers various amendments have been made in the orders by the various High Courts. Amendments have also been made keeping in view recommendations of the Law Commission. Anxiety of Parliament as evident from the amendments is to secure an early and expeditious disposal of civil suits and proceedings without sacrificing the fairness of trial and the principles of natural justice inbuilt in any sustainable procedure. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (104 of 1976) (In short "the 1976 Amendment Act") highlight the following basic considerations in enacting the amendments:
"5. (i) that a litigant should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice;
(ii) that every effort should be made to expedite the disposal of civil suits and proceedings, so that justice may not be delayed;
(iii) that the procedure should not be complicated and should, to the utmost extent possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community who do not have the means to engage a pleader to defend their cases."
6 (2005) 6 SCC 705 18 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc ... ... ...
10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
11. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.
12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in the judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar.)
13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v. Blyth².) A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. (See Shreenath v. Rajesh.)
14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.
.........
18. In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, considering the provisions of the Code dealing with the trial of the suits, it was opined that: (SCR pp. 8-9) 'Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and 19 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.'"
16. Attention is also invited to another recent order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Shaw and Anr. Vs. Rekha Shaw7. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said decision are relevant and they are reproduced below :-
"4. It appears that the learned Judge was not able to dispose of the aforesaid case within the period prescribed by this Court and as such, has passed an order dated 19.03.2024 that since he is unable to dispose of the matter within the stipulated timeframe, he has ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter.
5. We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed by the learned Judge. If for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed."
17. Reliance is also placed on the decision dated 25.11.2024 passed in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra8 referred to and relied upon by Mr. Godbole which refers to paragraph No. 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench in the 7 Misc. Application Diary No.45777 of 2024, Crl. A. No.2842 of 2023 passed on 26.09.2025 8 Criminal Appeal No(s)4758 of 2024 20 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 ::: 901 WPST-33325-25.doc case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors9. which held that Constitution Courts in the ordinary course should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending before any other Courts.
18. In view of the above observations and findings, directions contained in the order dated 04.10.2025, fixing the time schedule as contained in operative clause (2) is quashed and set aside.
19. The directions contained in operative clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the impugned order for determination of Trial are upheld and confirmed.
20. The learned trial Court is directed to abide by the directions contained in operative clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) strictly in accordance with law.
21. In view of this order, order dated 22.09.2025 passed below Exh. 726 is not sustainable and deserves to be interfered with. It is therefore quashed and set aside.
22. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date: 2025.10.09
21:10:59 +0530
9 Cri. App. @ SLP (CRL) No. 13366/2024
21
::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 01:08:55 :::