JUDGMENT :

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.

Respondent No.5 herein addressed letters to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on various dates which are on record of the case along with the office submission. One of the letters is dated 27.05.2013, wherein he requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to see that the present Second Appeal is heard at an early date, setting out the reason for such prayer. The second letter is dated 07.06.2014 and the office has made the following submission:-

"Applicant Mr. Kantibhai Punjabhai Solanki of Prantiya (village), Tal-Dist. Gandhinagar (At present residing at Ahmedabad) has stated in this application dated 06/06/2014 (received on 09/06/2014) that he is respondent No.5 in Second Appeal No. 33/2008 pending in this Court with regard to dispute of a property (land) situated at Prantiya Village. Applicant has also stated that the Government had undertaken the process for handing over possession of said land to original owners, including the applicant, but the appellant in Second Appeal No. 33/2008 has been delaying hearing in said Appeal by filing sick notes and leave notes and thereby he has been making attempts to see that applicant and others may not get possession of said land. Applicant has further stated that he is an aged, handicapped, poor and landless person. Applicant has requested to fix an early date of hearing in the matter, so that he can earn livelihood from said land by getting its possession and also to direct the appellant in said Appeal to complete his arguments at the earliest in the matter.

(NOTE: Since earlier application dated 27/05/2013 of the applicant was ordered to be referred to the Registrar (Judicial), if Your Lordship approves, this application may also be ordered to be referred to Registrar (Judicial) for doing the needful in the matter.)."

1.1. On 09.09.2014, one Smt. Lilaben Kantilal Solanki-wife of respondent No.5 remained personally present and requested this Court for the Second Appeal to be heard at an early date. The Court kept the matter on 10.09.2014 and learned Advocate Mr. Jitendra M.Patel was requested to make it convenient to come with the Second Appeal. On 10.09.2014, the Court passed the following order:-

"Parties-in-Person are personally present before the Court. Learned advocate Mr. Satyam Y.Chhaya to inform learned advocate Mr. Jitendra M.Patel for the appellant about the next date of hearing. The matter is kept on 15.09.2014."

1.2. These facts are set out so that even remotely it is not alleged that the Court gave undue priority to a Second Appeal of the year 2008 when Second Appeal more than two decades old are pending before the Court.

2. Coming to the merits of the matter, the present Second Appeal is filed being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.50 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the present appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit No.61 of 2001 dated 01.05.2006.

2.1. The very fact that it is a Second Appeal is suggestive of the fact that the parties are in High Court after having fought before the trial Court and thereafter before the 1st appellate Court. Had that been the only facts, the things would have been different, but present is a case which gives a very gloomy picture of the justice delivery system because in the present case, the present respondents are dragged in litigations on more than one occasion for the same subject matter, i.e. land bearing Block Nos. 62, 69, 70 paiki, 73 paiki and 77 paiki of village Prantiya.

2.2. This Court is of the opinion that if this Second Appeal is entertained and allowed, that will be an illustrious example of miscarriage of justice. This Court has no hesitation in reminding itself that substantial justice is the ultimate goal to be achieved by every judicial system and no am