IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1151 of 2009 SURAJ NARAYAN MISHRA, son of late Lalji Mishra, resident of Village – Manikpur, PS Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai (Old District Munger)…Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Collector, Munger 2. The Executive Engineer, R E O, District Munger 3. The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Sub Division, Lakhisarai, District – Munger (New District Lakhisarai) …Respondents- Opp.Parties ----------- 02- 7.4.2010 Heard Suman Kumar Mishra for the petitioner. This application has been filed for recall of the order dated 6.10.2004, passed in First Appeal no.284 of 1989, whereby the appeal was, on the submission of learned counsel for the appellant for lack of instruction, dismissed as not pressed. The order is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Mr. Binod Kumar Ambast appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that he has no instruction in this matter. It is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.” It is sought to be explained in the present application as to under what circumstances the instructions could not be sent to the learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal. 2. I am in this connection 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. The following portion of the book by Fali S. Nariman, entitled `India’s legal system: Can it be saved’, are relevant in the present context: 2 “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 observation: 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 an 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 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 Law Commission of India, but despite what was so wisely said by Mr.Hobhouse and again by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, 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.” 3. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this application. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl