D. S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.@mdashAs long back as on 19th May. 1988, a Division Bench of this Court directed that in addition to normal
mode of service, the petitioner shall serve respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 personally outside Court within three weeks, and file affidavit of service
within six weeks. Despite lapse of interminable period of more than twelve years, the petitioner has not bothered to comply the said order of the
Court dated 19th May, 1988. Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, who is present on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to point out any material on
record indicating compliance of the order of the Court dated 19th May, 1988.
2. Although Sri M. P. Gupta has put in appearance for respondent No. 3, yet respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not been served and are
unrepresented.
3. While directing the petitioner to take steps for service upon the respondents as aforesaid, the Court also granted interim order staying operation
of the impugned order which is still operative and the petitioner has been enjoying the same for all these years without complying the order of the
Court. A litigant who does not bother to comply the order of the Court is not entitled to any discretionary relief from it.
4. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default in complying the order of the Court dated 19th May, 1988. The interim order
dated 19th May, 1988 shall stand vacated.
