- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. It transpires from the record that this second ap peal was presented before this Court in the year 1991. The appeal was dis missed vide order dated 21. 7. 2003 on the ground that there were concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the two Courts below and no specific ques tion/questions of law are involved in this appeal. Subsequently, the review of the judgment dated 21. 7. 2003 was sought by learned Counsel for the appellant by filing a Review Petition No. 228 of 2003 before this Court and vide order dated 20. 4. 2005, this Court allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 21. 7. 2003. It was also directed the matter be listed before appropriate Bench in the first week of May, 2005 when the Hon'ble Judge may hear the par ties again as to what is exactly the substantial question of law involved in this appeal as observed in the order dated 7. 3. 1991 passed by Hon'ble K. C. Bhargava, J. (as he then was) and thereafter the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits.
(2.) AS per order-sheet, the case was listed on 20. 5. 2005. Thereafter, it was listed on 6. 7. 2005 and on the request of Sri Vinod Kumar Misra holding brief of Sri ASeem Chandra, the case was adjourned. However, it was directed that on the next date, if the case is not argued, stay order, if any, shall stand vacated. Subsequently, the case was listed on 11. 7. 2005, on which date, the case was adjourned. On 19. 7. 2005, learned Counsel for the appellant was not present and as such, the case was dismissed in default. However, vide order dated 19. 4. 2006, the case was restored to its original number. Thereafter, the case was listed on 5. 7. 2007, on which date, again learned Counsel for the appellants was not pre sent and as such, the case was dismissed in default. However, vide order dated 6. 8. 2007, the case was restored to its original number. When the case was listed on 6. 8. 2007, on the undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned for 14. 8. 2007 and it was clarified that the case would not be adjourned on that date but when the case was listed on 14. 8. 2008, 29. 8. 2007, 31. 8. 2007, 11. 9. 2007, 17. 9. 2007, 20. 9. 2007, 4. 10. 2007, 27. 11. 2007, 7. 12. 2007, 11. 1. 2008, 29. 1. 2008, 2. 4. 2008, 18. 4. 2008, the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 24. 7. 2008, considering the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents, this matter was directed to be listed in the next cause list and on the request of learned Counsel for the respondents, it was clarified that on the next date of listing, the case will not be adjourned on the ground of illness slip but again when the case was listed on 19. 8. 2008, the case was adjourned. Today when the case called out, again an illness slip has been sent by learned Counsel for the appellants.
(3.) THIS Court is bound and has to respect the observations and directions made by this Court in its order dated 24. 7. 2008, where this Court has already taken note that the matter was very old and the appellants are in unlawful possession of the property in dispute and they are enjoying the benefits of the property by virtue of continuance of the proceedings of this Court, no adjourn ment can be allowed. In Dr. Buddhi Koto. Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and others, AIR 1996 SC 2687 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file miscon ceived and frivolous petitions. ";