Judgment :- Srikrishna, C.J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th January, 2002 in C.M.P. No. 64162 of 2001 in O.P. No. 17182 of 2001 which, innocuously, reads as under: "Extension is granted as last chance for two months". Our initial reaction on reading this order was that the appeal was unnecessary. However, with the help of the learned counsel, when the facts were unveiled, we find that there is an attempt to hoodwink the court and take it for a ride for getting orders. We shall now see how this has been done. 2. A suit for injunction was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, as O.S. No 32 of 1995 by the present respondent against the present appellant. An application, I.A.No. 1632/2000 was filed therein by the present respondent seeking to stay the suit under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that there were certain pending appeals before the Land Tribunal and the issue arising in the suit was identical with the issue arising for consideration in the said appeals before the Land Tribunal. This application was rejected by the civil court. 3. Against the order of the civil court rejecting the said application, C.R.P. No. 2930 of 2000 was filed in this Court. This C.R.P. was heard and dismissed by Sankarasubhan J by order dated 9th April, 2001. The learned Judge took the view that the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application and the remedy was to file an appeal against the order. Instead of following the remedy as indicated, the present respondent filed an independent Original Petition, O.P. No 17182 of 2001, before this Court purportedly under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in this Original Petition, all facts pertaining to the above said Civil Revision Petition were disclosed in Para 4. O.P.No. 17182 of 2001 was disposed of without notice to the present appellant by a direction to the Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, Thrissur, to dispose of A.A. Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2001 immediately, at any rate within six weeks. The other direction, the one which is seriously objected to by the present appellant, is that the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi was directed not to include O.S.No 32 of 1995 in the hearing list earlier than September 2001. The other direction, the one which is seriously objected to by the present appellant, is that the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi was directed not to include O.S.No 32 of 1995 in the hearing list earlier than September 2001. We are informed that the said suit is ready for final hearing of arguments. There is no dispute that these orders were passed without notice to the present appellant and hearing him. 4. When the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi did not include O.S. No 32 of 1995 in the hearing list in September 2001, the present appellant made enquiries and learnt of the order made by this Court in O.P No 17182 of 2001. The remedy followed by the appellant for getting out of the order of this Court is also equally strange. Instead of moving this Court for vacating the order, he filed O.P. No 33043 of 2001 and this Court disposed of that O.P. without notice to the present respondent by directing the Munsiff Court, Parappannangady to include O.S. No 32 of 1995 in the list of January, 2002, if it was not so far finalised. C.M.P. No. 64162 of 2001 was filed by the present respondent once again before the learned Single Judge in O.P. No 17182 of 2001 seeking extension of time. The learned Single Judge disposed it of by granting extension as a last chance for two months. 5. It appears to us that the Advocates are happy with filing as many Original Petitions as possible and getting some kind of orders; we, the learned Judges, are happy that the Original Petitions are shown as disposed of in the returns filed. The unsung casualty in all this is the cause of justice. This is the reason why this Court has the dubious honour of having 1.27 lakhs of cases pending. It is time to change the situation before it engulfs us and destroys the credibility of the institution. Self restraint on the part of the lawyers and Judges is imperative. That is the crying need of the hour. In the present case, both the appellant and the respondent, have been filing totally misconceived Original Petitions, moving them indiscriminately, and without application of mind to the provisions of law. Such orders are made and obtained, perhaps, as the Judges are under tremendous pressure to cope with the flood of writ petitions. 6. In the present case, both the appellant and the respondent, have been filing totally misconceived Original Petitions, moving them indiscriminately, and without application of mind to the provisions of law. Such orders are made and obtained, perhaps, as the Judges are under tremendous pressure to cope with the flood of writ petitions. 6. In the above circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and direct that the Munsiff Parappanangadi shall set down O.S. No 32 of 1995 for hearing in the list which is prepared immediately hereafter. Both the appellant and respondent shall desist from impeding the decision of the suit by unnecessary Original Petitions. 7. We find that this is a fit case where both the appellant and the respondent should be mulcted in costs for frivolously wasting precious judicial time, which could have been better utilized for bringing succour to a more needy and more worthy litigant. Hopefully, that will act as a deterrant against such reckless litigative misadventures in future. The appellant and the respondent shall pay as costs Rs. 10,000/- each. Since there is no other person to claim the costs, the costs shall go to the funds of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Kerala. At least, thereby, the cause of justice would be served better. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.