ORDER :

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. - This appeal is representative of the large number of cases which are filed in the Courts across the country and which consume valuable time of the Courts without any tangible justification. The very fact that the Division Bench of the High Court devoted time to record an order running into 56 typed sheets and also the fact that this Court has devoted many hours including two hours hearing of today indicates how a purely civil and private litigation, camouflaged as a public interest litigation, puts unnecessary burden on the Courts and results in wastage of time which could otherwise be devoted for those who are waiting for years together with the hope that some day they will get an opportunity of hearing. This case is also illustrative of how a litigant pursues two remedies simultaneously and takes chance of getting favourable result from one or the other judicial forum.

2. The appellant and respondent No.6 are close relatives. Respondent No.6 (since deceased) is the real uncle of the appellant. Respondent No.7, of which respondent No.6 was the Managing Director availed loan of rupees five crores from the Tourism Finance Corporation of India