The court emphasized the need for the court to consider the question of limitation and any other objection raised by the opposing party when deciding restoration applications. It also highlighted the inherent power of the court to protect the interest of the applicant and to recall an order obtained by fraud or misleading the court.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri H. N. Shukla, learned Advocate who appeared in support of this writ petition and learned Standing Counsel.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated. 17. 2. 2005 (Annexure-31 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 /deputy Director of consolidation, Allahabad. There is further prayer that respondent No. 1 be directed not to proceed with the application (Annexure-27 to the writ petition) and proceedings on that application be dropped.

( 3 ) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the matter this has to come on the record that learned Advocate argued the matter for more than an hour inspite of indication that matter in issue is not such for which argument may stretch for such a long span. This was only with the purpose that we are already overburdened with large number of cases arising out of final order passed by the courts below which are pending since years and years and therefore, learned advocates are also to take care and they are to be vigilant to note that where to stop. Normally the court do not stop a counsel from arguing the matter in his own way as it is the liberty of the learned advocate to proceed according to his own way of placing the issue but take a case that writ petition is filed against a interlocutory order i. e. deciding some application or disposal of an issue at an intermediary stage in a particular manner and the proceedings before the court below are not final then certainly the court is also to see that by giving liberty of argument for hours and hours, the precious time which is primarily meant for the litigants is not consumed for no justification. Now time has come to speed up the things with a view of speedy disposal of the cases which is the need of the day for which the court expects co-operation from every corner and specially the advocates who assist the court in disposal of the cases. Now in the changing time if we do not join hands and improve justice delivery system litigants for whom we are here, may not excuse us. Old system of lengthy arguments on any kind of issue, now cannot fit in for the simple reason that people want result. We should not forget that number of cases, now a day stood multiplied thousand times. Now everybody has become vigilant about his rights and some times the courts have also started interfering in small and pity matters and thus people have started approaching the Law Courts even if there may not be any lawful justification. There is another reason to approach the courts. We all know about our system in which everybody is living. In what manner and to what extend people are able to get justice, but for intervention of the Courts, is not secret to any body In the aforesaid backdrop if we do not think to occupy courts time really on genuine matters and in the matters in which final rights of the parties are at stake then it will be too harsh on everybody. Thus it is again to be emphasized that in petty matters, and in the cases arising out of interlocutory orders it is for the learned Advocates to have some restraint to stretch the argument to a limit and not to go on arguing for hours and hours just like the matter which arises of final judgment. Thus now respective load will have to be shared by the learned advocates also with the court. Before parting with this issue, I may say that this court may not be misunderstood that observation in this respect has any reflection on the liberty of a learned advocate who is to argue the case before the court but this is high time to think over the matter in the public interest that while arguing a case, he has to stop when and where ?

( 4 ) THE comment on the role of learned Advocates as made above finds strong approval from the observation as made by the Apex Court as far back as in 1986 in case of Life Insurance corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC, 1370. . The kind of observation as was made by the Apex Court in 1986 g