IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1222 of 2001 1. MAHABIR PRASAD son of Late Jawahir Prasad 2. Raju Kumar Gupta 3. Lalan Prasad Gupta Both sons of Late Kashi Prasad 4. Sib Kumari wife of Kashi Prasad 5. Kameshwar Prasad alias Bhadai Prasad son of Jawahir Lal Sah All resident of Brahmchauk Ward No. 8 P.S. Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. ……….Plaintiffs/Appellants Versus 1. GANESH PRASAD 2. Suresh Prasad Both sons of Hiralal, Resident of master Colony Ward No. 6, District-Gopalganj 3. Dewanti Devi wife of Tuntun Prasad 4. Deepak 5. Rajesh Kumar 6. Dinesh Kumar All sons of Tuntun Prasad 7. Bhagwati Devi 8. Prakash Devi 9. Sani Devi All daughters of Tuntun Prasad 10. Savitri Devi wife of Pramatma Prasad 11. Saroj wife of Balramji 12. Nutan Devi wife of Papu Kumar Halwai 13. Sheela Kumari minor daughter of Tuntun Prasad 14. Rajni Devi minor daughter of Tuntun Prasad Both under the natural guardianship of Respondent -3 15. Urmila Devi wife of Late Ramchandra Prasad, Resident of Village-Hasanpura, P.S. Hasanpura, District-Siwan 16. Kedar Prasad 17. Hiralal Prasad 18. Binay Prasad 19. Bikash Prasad alias Patwarilal All sons of Laxmi Prasad, minor under the guardianship of Laxmi Prasad Resident of Gopalganj, P.S.-Goplganj, District-Gopalganj. 20. Binai Prasad son of Asarfi Sah, Resident of Village-Bari Bachra, P.S. & District-Gopalganj. 21. Jagnath Prasad son of Gaya Ram, Resident of Village Yadopur Road, Gopalganj Behind Triveni Press, District Gopalganj. 22. Asun Devi wife of Lal Babu Prasad 23. Baby Devi wife of Girdhari Prasad 24. Madhu Devi wife of Jai Prakash Prasad All resident of Brahmchauk Ward No. 8, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ……Defendants/Respondents. ----------- 2 6 25.10.2010 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 07.09.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in First Appeal No. 174 of 1996 (Mohabir Prasad and others Vrs. Ganesh Prasad and others), whereby the appeal has been held to have become incompetent in the absence of respondent nos. 3 to 21. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. It appears from a perusal of the records of No. 174 of 1996, that the same was laid before the learned Lawazma Board on 04.08.2000, on which date, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellants, one week‟s final time was granted to file talbana for issuance of appeal notices to respondent nos. 3 to 21. The order was not complied with, as a result of which it was placed before a Bench. By order dated 04.09.2000, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted further time till 11.09.2000 to file talbana etc. for service of appeal notice on respondent nos. 3 to 21, failing which the appeal, as against them, shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. The order was not complied with as a result of which the appeal stood dismissed against respondent nos. 3 to 21. The appeal was once again laid before a learned Single Judge of this Court and on 07.09.2001, and it was held that the appeal cannot proceed in the absence of respondent nos. 3 to 21, and has become incompetent as a whole. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the 3 submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the order dated 04.08.2000 was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellants, notwithstanding which the order of the learned Lawazma Board was not carried out. The matter had to be laid before the Bench on which date none appeared on behalf of the appellants, notwithstanding which further time was granted to appellants to carry out the order of the learned Lawazma Board within the time granted by a Bench failing which the appeal, as against the concerned respondents, was to automatically stand dismissed. Not having been complied with, the appeal stood dismissed against respondent nos. 3 to 21. It appears to us to be a case of laches and negligence on the part of the appellants and no explanation has been offered for non-compliance of the orders dated 04.08.2000 and 07.09.2000. In view of the position that the First Appeal arises out of a partition suit, and stood dismissed as against respondent nos. 3 to 21, the whole appeal has become incompetent and could not proceed in their absence. Consequently, the judgment of the learned trial court became final in so far as they are concerned. Allowing the appeal to continue with respect to the remaining respondents may result in inconsistent judgment and decree. We, therefore, entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge that the appeal cannot proceed in the absence of respondent nos. 3 to 21, and has become incompetent as a whole. 4. We may notice another aspect of the matter. It is difficult to recall the judgment in question and rehear the matter also in view of growing pendency in courts in India. I am reminded of the conclusion 4 arrived at by Mr. Bibek Debroy in his book entitled „In the Dock: Absurdities of Indian Law‟, that the pending litigations in this country without any addition thereto, will take 324 years for disposal. These observations were made more than two decades ago, and the situation has further deteriorated. A Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently has reviewed the position, and stated that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. 5. The following portion of the book by Fali S. Nariman, entitled „India‟s legal system: Can it be saved,” is also relevant in the present context: “More than one hundred years ago, a law member in the Government of India (Hobhouse) recorded in a minute dated 5 September 1872 (on the Bill leading to the Privy Council Appeal Act, 1874) the following observations: In considering what limit should be assigned to the power of appealing, our leading maxim is, that it is the interest of the commonwealth to have and end of law suits. No man has a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wishes. The state‟s duty is discharged when it has provided such a reasonable amount of attention and skill and honesty as will satisfy reasonable men that their causes have been decided, erroneously or otherwise, on the merits, and according to the best a ability of the judge, and so will prevent them from feeling that resentment of sheer injustice which drives people to take the law into their hands and to wage private war. Upon this principle all laws place some limits to litigation. And so have we placed limits to the power of appealing. Pithily put, and elegantly phrased. The portion about no man having a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wished was quoted by Justice Gajendrgadkar (who later became Chief Justice of India) in one of the early reports of the Law Commission of India, but despite what was so wisely said by Mr. Hobhouse and again by Chief Justice Gajendrgadkar, our laws continue to provide ( by way of appeals, reviews and revisions) unlimited draughts on the time and money of the 5 public in order to get private affairs ultimately settled. For instance, we have now abolished second appeals, and yet lawyers go on arguing endlessly about the amenability of inter-court appeals under special laws.” 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. Anjani/M.Rahman (S.K. Katriar.J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )