JUDGMENT 'Procedural Impropriety' is the echo of this petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Proceedings manifest a woeful state. Petitioner (respondent in appeal) obtained eviction decree on bonafide need in terms of S. 12(1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 after protracted trial lasting 5 years on 20.9.90 and is now lugged in appeal waiting to hear the appellate verdict. The suit was filed in 1985 (new number 272-N90). Decree was passed on 20.9.90. The appeal was filed on 11.2.91. It was admitted for final hearing on 15.4.91: After several dates, learned appellate Judge, adjourned the Case on 6.4.94 on cost of Rs. 100/- as last chance with further adjournments on 26.4.94,24.6.94,5.8.94, 11.8.94, and lastly on 23.8.94 for 26.9.94. On 11.8.94 the Court again adjourned the appeal as last chance with observation that the request for adjournment was not proper. Learned appellate Judge (III Addl. Judge to be Court of District Judge, Indore Shri Nanor) seems to be in no hurry to hear the matter and sees no fault in adjourning it despite warning of last chance. Now what does this mean? How can the proceedings in Court of law be seen to be fouled and fouled like that ? In P.N. Dua's. case (AIR 1983 SC 1208), the Supreme Court observed with serious concern that :- "Justice cries in silence for long far too long. The procedural wangle is eroding the faith in our justice system." Yet the learned appellate Judge, exhibitied no concern to prevent the erosion and preserve the faith. There is no point of merit in knowing what is right and still doing what is wrong. This Court has to tell all concerned to spurn such proclivity. Both sides of lis have a right to see expeditious termination and know the result. But as parties to the appeal they seem to be the travellers in a tunnel with no light in sight. The system should operate to pursuade and permit the litigants to preserve faith in the dignity of the court and in the majesty of law. In Council of Civil services Union V. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 SLR 1174 (HL) Lord Deulock stated in classic terms that "procedural impropriety" is one of the ground for "judicial review". The system should operate to pursuade and permit the litigants to preserve faith in the dignity of the court and in the majesty of law. In Council of Civil services Union V. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 SLR 1174 (HL) Lord Deulock stated in classic terms that "procedural impropriety" is one of the ground for "judicial review". Newly inserted provision O.XU, R. 11 CPC via Amendment Act, 1976 demands an endeavour to conclude the stage or motion hearing within sixty days and pre-existing provisions OXU, R 1 (2) declares that after admission, day for hearing the appeal "shall be fixed with reference to the current business of the Court" allowing the respondent sufficient time to appear and answer the appeal "on such day". Where was the propriety to continue to adjourn the appeal repeatedly from 91 to 94 ?1 Are the parties not entitled to seek disposal with some speed and incineration of hibernation? Now that 26. 9. 94 is the date fixed as last chance, I direct that the appeal shall be heard without further adjournment and be decided by 30.9.94. So much for the parties; yet this cannot be the omega in such matters. So I direct the Additional Registrar of this Court to obtain explanation of the learned Appellate Judge through District Judge, Indore on the point of repeated adjournments despite last chances and place the same before me alongwith the record of this petition as "PUD" for appropriate orders. For other purposes, this petition stands disposed of in terms indicated above. A copy of this order shall go to the appellate Court (III Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore) for guidance in other cases pending before him.