TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was heard on 18th February, 2020 and thereafter reserved for orders. The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is that despite the matter being reserved for orders, no orders were pronounced in the Order XII Rule 6 application. Accordingly, the present petition seeks directions to be given for early disposal of the said application. 3. Mr. Harsh Kumar, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is that the order was not pronounced for a long time. On 8th July, 2020, due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the matter was simply adjourned for orders to 31st July, 2020. Ld. Counsel submits that this Court in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera [CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on 18th November, 2019], clearly holds that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law, orders which are reserved have to be pronounced within two months. If the same are not pronounced for three months, the litigant is entitled to approach the High Court. The same is clear from a reading of the Supreme Court's judgment in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] 7 SCC 318. This judgement was considered in Deepti Khera (supra) wherein it has been clearly held as under: "6. It is the settled position in law, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] 7 SCC 318 that once matters are reserved for orders, usually, the same should be pronounced within a time schedule. In Anil Rai (supra) it has been observed as under: "8. The intention of the legislature regarding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month. (iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover. (iv) Where a jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.]" 9. While this Court is conscious of the fact that there are pressures on the Trial Courts, non-pronouncement of orders for more than a year cannot be held to be justified. It has been observed in several matters that trial courts keep matters `FOR ORDERS' for months together and sometimes orders are not pronounced for even 2-3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourts subordinate to the High Court till 3-5-2020 and further directing that the matters listed between 16-4-2020 and 2-5-2020 be adjourned en bloc. It is the case of the petitioner that the Divorce Petition filed by the petitioner, being HMA No. 687/2015 (re-numbered as HMA No. 48736/2016), has been pending adjudication since 2015. Judgment therein was reserved on 18-1-2020. The petition was thereafter posted for judgment on various dates and was last listed on 4-4-2020. Due to the office order mentioned hereinabove, the judgment in the petition has still not been pronounced and the matter was adjourned. The petitioner by way of the present petition prays that the office order mentioned hereinabove be amended so as to enable the learned....