JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member. - A suit filed by Lakshman under Section 229-B Z.A., L.R. Act in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballia. This was decreed on 26-6-1967. 2. A restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. moved by a member of L.M.C. on behalf of Gaon Sabha on 20-9-1967. The case set forth is that after filing written statement on 10-4-1967 Pardhan Bramde gave up prosecution of defence. An affidavit in support of all averments filed. An objection, countering all contents, filed by Lakshman on 15-0-1968. On a consideration of all Sub-Divisional Officer granted the restoration application on 28-2-1973. 3. Revision filed by plaintiff/opposite party Lakshman in the court Commissioner, Varanasi. Additional Commissioner by his order date 4-10-1977 submitted a recommendence for remand, setting aside the impugned order. Board of Revenue accepted the reference on 26-4-1975 all has set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28-2-1973. The application was sent down for re-trial in the second innings. This ends the first phase that began with restoration application on 20-9-1967 and ends with the order of Board of Revenue on 26-4-1975 : a period of 8 years. 4. Sub-Division-Officer at Ballia, applicant Musafir Singh : restoration Opposite party Lakshman died on 21-7-1975. Substitution application moved to bring, his legal representatives on record : Jagdeo, Kuldeep Chanderdeep, Sukhdeo sons of deceased Lakshman. S.D.O. grants the substitution on 10-8-1977. Quick to move, Jagdeo's lodged a revision, this the second time, in the court of Commissioner, Varanasi Additional Commissioner by order dated 4-10-1977 has dismissed it. Still in further move, Jagdeos pressed a revision in this court. This too was rejected on 7-1-1981. The substitution of heirs became final in 4 years : reckoning from S.D.Os order : 10-8-1977. 5. So, then, down came the judicial file once more. S.D.O. at Ballia, applicant Gaon Sabha in restoration. However, this assignment has kept aside and interest revited on a matter, so much as peripheral : the restitution of name in revenue records, as it was before 20-6-1967, the date of original decree. S.D.O. by order dated 14-2-1984 directs to restore the name of Gaon Sabha in khatoni, as it was written, before the impugned decree. 6. A revision is carried by Jagdeos in the court of Commissioner, Varanasi. S.D.O. by order dated 14-2-1984 directs to restore the name of Gaon Sabha in khatoni, as it was written, before the impugned decree. 6. A revision is carried by Jagdeos in the court of Commissioner, Varanasi. Additional Commissioner by his order dated 10-12-1984 has submitted a recommendation to set aside S.D.Os order as restitution of Gaon Sabhas name is not apt, the decree favouring Jagdeo's stands tall. The reference is here under consideration. 7. Heard. 8. A decree dated 26-6-1967. Plaintiff Lakshman is opposite party. He is under legal obligation to show that sources of this decree are lawful. This is not his pleasure. Lakshman and substituted heirs Jagdeo's have outmaneuvered the applicant in restoration for over 23 years the final disposal of a mere application is still not in sight. This is their third revision : the challenge to decree came on 20-9-1967. The process of filing revision threatens to continue because the enjoyment of fruits of decree, land over 2 bighas : are delightful. So men of the proportion of Jagdeo's, revisionists here, are unwilling to subject the decree to its legal investigation. Clearly material again outweigh their legal commitment. In this view, whence the point of restitution of name of Gaon Sabha arose before S.D.O. Ballia, he should have been reticent, not passing any order then and there. It was the restoration application for his immediate contemplation, the matter for urgent concern to wrestle. Of course, even before a suit is restored to it's original number, the court can pass incidental orders under Section 151 C.P.C. when circumstances are so compelling in the larger interest of justice. This can be done only in rarest of rare cases as suit is rot alive and no usual provision enables making of such an order. More, "It makes all the difference in the world" said coleridge "whether one puts truth in the first place or in the second." Upon men and facts, and such disposition of things as seen here, was the making of the order dated 14-2-1984 to be put in the first place instead of second? It is clear revisionist Jagdeo's "greed is of a plutoral, eager to snatch from the weakness of public authority an opportunity for personal gain" (R.N. Tawney, Religion and the rise of capitalism, Penguin Book's (N.Y. 1967) page 81. It is clear revisionist Jagdeo's "greed is of a plutoral, eager to snatch from the weakness of public authority an opportunity for personal gain" (R.N. Tawney, Religion and the rise of capitalism, Penguin Book's (N.Y. 1967) page 81. Sub-Division-Officer's order to restitute Gaon Sabhas name even though decree 26-6-1967 stands tall, favouring Jagdeos, is not apt but one should be loath to interfere. Additional Commissioner will not let that pass by, as he perceives the impugned order only from a legal viewpoint. Law is not merely a legal quibble. Law is something far, far more than the push and pull of private intention. Let us survey the position at a distance from outside. The decree 26-6-1967 stands, perhaps, Jagdeos possession is exercised over the land, their names bulk large in khatoni. What more for them? Their motivation is selfish and in the sole interest of the first person singular. By a relentless partisan behaviour for over 23 years an order for final disposal of a restoration application has been halted. If it eventually will come and revisions are admitted, as is likely it will take time in three courts, say, 10 years. The application will stand finally decided after 33 years or thereabouts. How to compell Jagdeos to conform? The legal provision, here and there, isolated and lonly, will not enrich the perspective. There should be a livelier apprehension of law, facts and men in their mutual impingement. Land other than Gaon Sabhas, men responsibly serious than Jagdeos : the ruling provision the same, I should have envinced interest to continue entry of their names. 9. Is not the order interim? It decides no dispute finally. My Lord V.K. Mehrotra J. in 1990 R.D. 400 is radical : even if an order is totally without jurisdiction, no interference, if the order promotes justice. My Lord A.N. Varma, J. in 1990 R.D. 253 is quite earnest : Except in extreme cases where there may be a possibility of irreparable less been occasioned if the court does not intervenue immediately, we should be slow in interfering. This case, as many others, illustrate the tragic fact that more real violence and suffering is caused to men, by following the peaceful, legal and accredited procedure than by war itself. Applicant Musafir Singh is crucified by the dilemma he is in. We have a role to play that will even the hand of justice. 10. This case, as many others, illustrate the tragic fact that more real violence and suffering is caused to men, by following the peaceful, legal and accredited procedure than by war itself. Applicant Musafir Singh is crucified by the dilemma he is in. We have a role to play that will even the hand of justice. 10. Reference is rejected. Restoration application be decided expeditiously. If restored, the admission of revision shall be according to consecrated principles.