IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.409 of 2008 Om Prakash Chaubey, S/o late Chhatrabali Chaubey, resident of village- Navka Tola Bargawan, Police Station Bagha, District- West Champaran, at present residing at T.T.E. North Eastern Railway at the Ballia (U.P). …….Plaintiff….Petitioner. Versus Sharda Nand Choubey, S/o late Chhatarabli Chaubey, resident of village- Navka Tola Bargawn, P.S. Bagha, District- West Champaran at present residing at Ramswari Cottage, Tageor Nagar, Ballia, P.S. Kotwali Town, District- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh). …..Defendant…Opposite Party. ----------- 03- 20.10.2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. The plaintiff is the petitioner in an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Munsif, Bagaha, District- West Champaran, in Misc. Case No.21 of 2007, whereby his restoration application has been rejected in limine. 2. We have perused the materials on record. It appears that Title Suit No.54 of 1994 was dismissed by order dated 7.8.2007, for non-compliance of the order dated 19.4.2006, leading to the aforesaid Misc. Case No.21 of 2007. The same has been rejected on the ground that the suit is of 1994, and the plaintiff has all through been negligent in pursuing the suit. Indeed the same was earlier dismissed twice for failure to prosecute the suit, and were restored on both the occasions by taking a lenient view. We are of the opinion that, in view of the negligent approach of the 2 plaintiff, the learned trial court is right in passing the impugned order. 3. 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 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. One Judge perhaps of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently has made observations that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. 4. 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 3 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 Gajendragadkar (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 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 maintainability of intra-court appeals under special laws.” None has a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled. 5. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/