ORDER : Ranganath Misra, J. - Special leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who are husband and wife respectively, at length. By the impugned order, the High Court has struck out a major portion of the pleadings in the appellant's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction and contends that without these allegations he would be prejudiced in supporting his prayer for the relief of divorce. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has struck out a portion of para 4, whole of paras 4-A, 4-B, 4-C and 4-D, a part of para 4-G, whole of paras 8, 10, 11, 13 to 18, 21 to 32, 35 to 42, 50, 51, 56 to 71, 73 to 104 a portion of para 111 and whole of paras 112 to 137, 139 to 141, 146 to 149, 151 to 155 and 161. It is a fact that the petition under Section 13 of the Act is unusually long and at places what could be legitimately within the ambit of evidence has come into the pleading. It is not in dispute that the relief in the application for divorce is grounded upon adultery, cruelty and desertion. According to learned counsel for the appellant, all the pleadings are relevant and without them the appellant would be prejudiced in sustaining his application. Learned counsel for the respondent read to us some of the paras in the plaint and indicated that they were not at all necessary and if they are omitted or kept away from the petition, no prejudice will be caused. 3. After we heard learned counsel for the parties we indicated to them that though the application is unnecessarily long and more descriptive than necessary for purposes of pleading, to analyse the pleadings at this stage to find out which portion should be kept and which portion deleted is an exercise which from one angle is unnecessary and from the other may indeed be prejudicial. Some of the allegations which learned counsel for the respondent read to this may even be available for the respondent in support of such defence as may be open to her in law. We do not want to express any opinion which may prejudice the parties at the trial. 4. Some of the allegations which learned counsel for the respondent read to this may even be available for the respondent in support of such defence as may be open to her in law. We do not want to express any opinion which may prejudice the parties at the trial. 4. We have, therefore, thought it appropriate to direct that all the paras in the plaint shall stand restored and the impugned order of the High Court shall stand vacated. 5. The respondent had filed the written statement with reference to the remaining paras in the petition for divorce. Now that the petition is restored to its original form, a further written statement may have to be filed. We allow a month's time from today to the respondent to file such written statement. Earlier two weeks had been allowed for replication. We allow the appellant that time after the written statement is filed. Learned counsel for both sides have assured us that they would not ask for any extension in the matter of compliance of this direction. Therefore, the time now given for these two purposes shall be taken as peremptory. 6. The scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act indicates the legislative policy that cases under it have to be expeditiously disposed of. Bearing that in view, on an earlier occasion this Court had set out a schedule and had requested the High Court to adopt it. That has been disturbed on account of this appeal and a concomitant order of stay of further proceedings. We would request the learned Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to nominate a learned Judge (may be the same learned Judge who has already dealt with the matter) to take up the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. He will make every possible attempt to sit from day-to-day so that there may be compliance of the above. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. We make no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.