JUDGMENT Chattejee, J. - Under the Rules of this Court old and stale cases are placed on the special list for dismissal, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. This is a typical case in which no step has been taken for over 9 years and the suit is still pending. It is a suit for the recovery of a debt which was filed in February 1938 and has not yet been decided. After the pleadings and discovery were completed the suit appeared in the prospective list in April 1939 and in the warning list on 5th June 1939. On 19th June 1939 the suit was taken out of the warning list on the requisition of the defendant's attorney. On 24th July 1939, the suit was mentioned before Lort-Williams J. and adjourned by consent of the parties. Since then nothing has been done and it now appears before me on the special list for dismissal. 2. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Hamoodoor Rahman, contends that the suit should be dismissed for non-prosecution and that the Court has jurisdiction to punish a litigant by dismissing a suit under its inherent power when the suit is a vexatious one and constitutes an abuse of process of the Court. The Learned Counsel referred me to the dicta of Lord Halsbury, Bowen and Cotton L. JJ. in a number of English cases. Lord Halsbury pointed out that judicial discretion must be used in determining whether proceedings are vexatious. 3. The question before me is whether the Court has jurisdiction to dismiss a suit on the special list after it has once appeared in the prospective list or the warning list, although nothing has been done thereafter for years. Inasmuch as the profession is vitally interested in the matter, the Incorporated Law Society through its President Mr. N.C. Chunder, has appeared and argued that the Court has no such jurisdiction and that its power to dismiss a suit for non-prosecution can only be invoked under Chap. X, R. 35 of the Rules of the High Court, Original Side. Rankin C.J. in Haribux Shroff Vs. Dwijendra Mohan Ghosh, AIR 1931 Cal 671 , held that this rule applies only to cases which are not in the prospective list and which never were in the prospective list. When a suit has once appeared in that list, this rule is no longer applicable to it. Rankin C.J. in Haribux Shroff Vs. Dwijendra Mohan Ghosh, AIR 1931 Cal 671 , held that this rule applies only to cases which are not in the prospective list and which never were in the prospective list. When a suit has once appeared in that list, this rule is no longer applicable to it. The same view was taken by Derbyshire C.J. and Nassim Ali J, in Dawoodayal Kothari v. Shibnath Roy Burman, 46 C.W.N. 653. The learned Chief Justice in that case put a rather narrow construction on the relevant rule. Before the Court proceeds to deprive a litigant of his right to prosecute his claim, the Court acting under this rule should, according to Derbyshire C.J., be satisfied that to do otherwise would be to permit an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Reference has been made by Mr. Chunder and Mr. B.C. Mitra, counsel for the plaintiff, to Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent which enjoins the Judges of this Court to try and determine suits. 5. No doubt Judges are paid by the public exchequer to try and decide cases on their merits and not to dispose of them by exercising the power of summary dismissal. Still in a case where nothing has been done for about 10 years, if I have the power, I have the will to dismiss it. 6. I regret to hold that the Court has no power to dismiss a suit after it has once appeared in the prospective list. Having regard to the judgments of this Court which are binding on me, R. 35 of Chap. X is put out of operation inasmuch as the suit had been placed in the prospective list and the warning list 9 years back. It has been held in Abdul Kurim Abu Ahmed Khan v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., 44 Cal. 929 : (AIR 1917 Cal. 44 F.B.) that the inherent power of the Court should not be invoked when the Code makes some provisions which would meet the necessities of the case. The same principle applies in this case of the Rules of this Court. I have also been reminded of the strong observations of the Judicial Committee in the AIR 1936 9 (Privy Council) . In that case the Judicial Committee approved of the judgment of Rankin C.J. in Haribux Shroff Vs. Dwijendra Mohan Ghosh, AIR 1931 Cal 671 . The same principle applies in this case of the Rules of this Court. I have also been reminded of the strong observations of the Judicial Committee in the AIR 1936 9 (Privy Council) . In that case the Judicial Committee approved of the judgment of Rankin C.J. in Haribux Shroff Vs. Dwijendra Mohan Ghosh, AIR 1931 Cal 671 . Lord Thankerton observed: Every litigant has the right to have his case heard and disposed of but that right must not be abused, even though the defendant, for reasons of his own, is not anxious to complain of the plaintiff's delay. But the Court is not entitled to deprive the litigant of his right, except on clearly ascertained grounds, and to the exclusion of grounds which rest only on suspicion. 7. I cannot leave this matter without pointing out that in the interest both of the profession and of the litigants steps should be taken to prevent such regrettable delays. A litigant can be punished when a suit does not appear in the prospective list within a certain time. Once it is placed on that list, the duty of the litigant and his attorney ends. The procedure gives ample scope to a crafty litigant to keep his suit pending for years. There is no provision to deal with a case if it is taken out of the prospective list or the warning list. It is the duty of the Court to repress dilatory tactics and the proper authorities should consider the question of the revision of the Code and the Rules regulating civil procedure so as to secure speedier justice. Commercial suits are more speedily decided in this High Court and the Law Society through its representative made a suggestion that the English practice as to summons for directions should be adopted. That should be done. The congestion in civil Courts is due to many factors, some of which have disappeared, namely, communal disturbances, the possibility of partition, as well as the Defence of India Act, Emergency Legislation and hastily drafted Statutes and Ordinances, which occupied a good deal of the time and attention of the Courts. The Civil Justice Committee presided over by Sir George Rankin made recommendations which speeded up trial of suits and proceedings and it is time that something should be done so as to simplify procedure and eliminate law's delays. The Civil Justice Committee presided over by Sir George Rankin made recommendations which speeded up trial of suits and proceedings and it is time that something should be done so as to simplify procedure and eliminate law's delays. There are cases often filed to secure an interim order and once the interlocutory application is disposed of the litigant who initiated proceedings takes no further interest. Of such a litigant it can be said: Life's but a walking shadow: a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more. 8. These cases, moribund or stale, should be cleared off the files to the relief of bona fide litigants who are waiting for the adjudication of their cases on the merits. 9. This suit should go forthwith to the warning list. Costs costs in the cause. Certified for counsel.