JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. The records reveal that the appeal was filed in the year 1975. The same was dismissed on 30th July, 2002. Subsequently, by an order dated 2nd December, 2005, the appeal was restored. On 2nd May, 2007, the appeal was again dismissed - after its restoration - since no steps were taken on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the appellant No. 2, Ajit Kumar Mondal died on or about 18th January, 2012. The other appellant, Rangini Mondal had died on or about 11th April, 2005. It further appears that Amulya Chandra Mondal, the appellant No. 1 has also died quite sometime back. Amulya's wife Sushila Mondal died on or about 2nd December, 2011. Now, after a period of almost five and a half years from the death of the appellant No. 2, the heirs of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed two connected applications on 14th March, 2018, of which, CAN 1930 of 2018, is for recalling of the order dated 2nd May, 2007, whereas CAN 1931 of 2018 is for the purpose of bringing on record the heirs of the deceased appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Rangini, the appellant No. 3, had sold her interest in the land in the year 1996 to Monoranjan Mondal much before her death, as alleged. 2. Earlier, on two occasions, i.e., on 07.06.2018 and 14.06.2018, both the applications were adjourned since the applicants had remained unrepresented. 3. Even today, at the time of second call, none appears on behalf of the applicants. 4. It is quite evident that the applicants are not interested in prosecuting their applications with due diligence and prompt dispatch. 5. That apart, a lis cannot be successively brought back to life merely because a litigant has a right to file a recalling application seeking restoration of his/her lis after each dismissal. 6. The Courts have also deprecated restoration of matters after a long gap as time is precious and wasted time would never revisit, apart from the question of prejudice it might cause to the party who was kept on tenterhooks for an indefinite period due to sheer inaction on the part of the person upon whom the obligation lies to restore a lis. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So, a lifespan must be limited for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The maxim, "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (Latin), meaning that in the interest of society as a whole, litigation must come to an end, is apt and is required to be quoted in the present context. In this context, one may take notice of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Messrs Serajuddin & Co. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 CC 1397 (CAL). 7. Even the application being CAN 1930 of 2018, for recalling of the order of dismissal dated 2nd May, 2007, is bereft of any explanation-plausible or otherwise - as to why the legal heirs of the deceased appellants and/or substituted appellants took about five and a half years to approach this Court seeking recall of the said order of dismissal. We also find that no cause or sufficient cause has been shown for nonappearance of the appellants on 2nd May, 2007. There is also no averment as to when exactly the legal heirs of the appellants came to know of the appeal filed by their predecessor-in-interest had been dismissed. In such circumstances, the application for recalling the order of dismissal dated 2nd May, 2007, is dismissed and as a consequence, the other application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased appellants on record also stands dismissed. Arindam Mukherjee, J. I agree.