Indeed, the procedures are not the bed of Sodom, but they are not hefker. As the first instance noted, all the material required for the matter was found elsewhere, not necessarily in the hands of the appellant's previous counsel, and it was not possible to leave the preparation of the case and the acquisition of the material to the ninetieth minute. A litigant is not entitled to assume that the dates set will be postponed at his request.
Therefore, I see no room for the intervention of the appellate court in the matter of the arguments in the proceedings raised by the appellant. Accepting the arguments means nothing more than setting a third hearing to hear witnesses whose hearings could have been concluded in one sitting. If the appellant has real claims against his attorneys in the past - and I do not express any opinion on this matter - the appellant can sue them for his damages, to the extent that he has cause of action against them. The appellant is not entitled to receive, at the expense of the public, even while paying the expenses of a third date for hearing the evidence. Judicial time is a limited resource and it belongs not only to each and every one of the litigants, but also to the public as a whole. The court was permitted to give preference to the public over the appellant's case.
Therefore, in my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed and the appellant should be charged with the attorneys' fees of respondents 1 and 2 in the sum of ILS 30,000."
- Against this background, the question arises as to whether it is justified in this case to grant the applicants "royal treatment", which is not given to other litigants. Whoever wins the lawsuit, in a monetary claim, pays a fee at the Execution Office, and the collection proceedings are conducted there, according to the pace of the execution system. Although there are those who complain that the efficiency of the collection proceedings in the Execution Office is low, this is not an individual problem of the applicants before me, but of the general public. Granting the application before me, in practice, places the applicants at an advantage over others: the collection proceedings are conducted in the District Court, without payment of a fee, and while granting the applicants' attorney, as a receiver, the authority to collect property, request instructions in relation to property that is not in the respondent's name, and more.
An example of what this is like: someone who needs medical treatment "jumps" straight to the surgeon in the surgical department, instead of standing in line in the emergency room, like the general public. Needless to say, if many people go directly to the surgeon, it will not be able to perform the; His tasks are within the framework of the surgical department and the operating room adjacent to it.