IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2383 of 2008 BASANT PRASAD SHARMA Versus CHAMPARAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK ----------- 2. 27.7.2010 Heard Mr. Alok for the petitioner. This application has been filed for recall of the order dated 17.7.2008, passed in L.P.A. No. 59 of 2002 (Basant Prasad Sharma Vrs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin). The appeal was disposed of with the following order: “Learned counsel, Mr. Alok states that this appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as being infructuous.” Mr. Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner, today submits that he had erroneously withdrawn the appeal and it transpired from the instructions received from the petitioner after disposal of the appeal that it has not really become infructuous. We do not consider it an appropriate ground to recall the order. We are 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 2 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 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently made observations that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. 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 3 reasonable men that their causes, have been decided, erroneously or otherwise, on the merit, 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 the 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.” 4 This application is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (J.N. Singh, J.)