R. S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been pending in this Court for 14 years. Part of the fault lies on our registry and part on counsel who had appeared for the petitioner, now dead. ( 2 ) THIS court will take the first aspect. ( 3 ) THE Court has no hesitation in placing on record that the nothings made by the registry on the order sheet are not appropriate nor accurate nor in accordance with Rules of the Court and do not reflect credibility. ( 4 ) THE petition was filed on Feb. 15, 1974 and admitted on that day with an order that notices be issued to the respondents. It remained pending, when on Sept. 19, 1975 an application was filed with a fresh appearance by another counsel. The application mentioned that the petitioner is dead and in his place the name of his son Ram Kishan be substituted. Today, after thirteen years this application still remains pending consideration. When this application was filed a copy of it was not served on counsel for the respondent Mr. B. R. Tripathi though he had entered appearance on Sept. 4, 1974 by a Vakalatnama registered against No. 8874 on that day. This in itself was not appropriate. On this application on 1-11-1976 the Joint Registrar issued notices, but steps to affect service on the respondents were never taken. Now the report submitted by the Section Officer of the registry is under criticism by this Court. On the filing of this application and in pursuance of the order to issue notices, the registry was under an obligation of law if adequate steps to affect service on respondent had not been taken to list the matter in Court with an appropriate report within the time set under Chapter XII Rule 4. This was not done. The situation was being saved with the registry mentioning that notices for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 were accepted by the Standing Counsel. The application was never served on the office of the Standing Counsel. Thereafter, the registry (Sic) that the opposite party No. 1 i. e. the contesting respondent, is represented by Mr. B. R. Tripathi, Advocate. But, how would Mr. Tripathi know that an application has been filed when a copy was not served upon his office. The application was never served on the office of the Standing Counsel. Thereafter, the registry (Sic) that the opposite party No. 1 i. e. the contesting respondent, is represented by Mr. B. R. Tripathi, Advocate. But, how would Mr. Tripathi know that an application has been filed when a copy was not served upon his office. It was not the business of the registry to have recorded that the contesting respondent is represented by counsel as this does not amount to service. The registry was trying a face saving device in absolving itself in not reporting the matter of the Court within the time set by the Rules, as only by this step alone counsel for the respondent, aforesaid, would have had notice of the application being moved, even though it was not served on him. ( 5 ) THE irregularity in the manner in which the registry has recorded proceedings does not cease here. After four years i. e. on June 28, 1980 i. e. the period of summer vacations the registry was again reiterating this report that opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 have received notices on the application through the Standing Counsel; as mentioned earlier the Standing Counsel had not been served with a copy of the application. Thereafter, it again reiterated that opposite party No. 1 was "represented by Shri B. R. Tripathi whose vakalatnama attached " (sic)". Mr. Tripathi may have filed his vakalatnama but he did not receive a copy of this application. By writing this report the registry was creating a situation that opposite party No. 1 had been served. Now the registry was playing with the process of the Court. It made another grievous mistake in recording "no C. A. has been filed. " How could a counter affidavit be filed to answer the application which has not been served? On June 28, 1980 there is also an endorsement of the Registrar that the matter be put up for orders and this was never done. Today eight years have passed. In between, what has happened is that the petitioner is dead and the substitution application has not been served and now to grant time to the respondent to file a counter affidavit on an application filed thirteen years ago will be making a mockery of public justice for which two factors are responsible. Today eight years have passed. In between, what has happened is that the petitioner is dead and the substitution application has not been served and now to grant time to the respondent to file a counter affidavit on an application filed thirteen years ago will be making a mockery of public justice for which two factors are responsible. Indifferent approach when clerical steps were to be taken by lawyers office and, the registry of the Court which cannot be absolved from it. ( 6 ) IN between has arrived an application on behalf of the respondent that the petition must abate. If the record is to be accepted then the respondent No. 1 does not have knowledge of the application having been moved by the son that his father the petitioner, is dead, and his name be substituted. ( 7 ) THE petition, is only for an order of remand of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dt. January 30, 1974 but the matter cannot proceed on merits as the substitution application is still in issue. Thus, this Court must now examine the substitution application and the diligence with which it was filed and acted upon or the application of respondent No. 1 with the prayer that the petition must abate. Between the two situations one of them must happen. ( 8 ) THE petitioner died but the application seeking substitution though filed was not chased with effective steps under the Rules of the Court for affecting service upon the respondent No. 1. Now the logic of law must follow, notwithstanding that the registry may have failed in its obligation to list the application before the Court under Chapter XII Rules 3 and 4. When steps for affecting service upon respondent No. 1 had not been taken this application should have been listed in Court immediately for disposal against the persons who had not been served. The status of this application is such even today. It would have been another matter if the counsel for respondent No. 1 had been served, even this had not been done. The net result is that this application for bringing the heirs of the petitioner on record thirteen years ago must continue to lie dormant. No effective steps were taken (a) either to affect service upon respondent No. 1 or (b) or his counsel who otherwise was represented. The net result is that this application for bringing the heirs of the petitioner on record thirteen years ago must continue to lie dormant. No effective steps were taken (a) either to affect service upon respondent No. 1 or (b) or his counsel who otherwise was represented. This application must be dismissed as the person who seeks to be represented in lieu of the petitioner ought to have been diligent in law in pursuing the litigation and otherwise has been responsible for keeping these proceedings pending at least from the date when he was seeking substitution before this Court i. e. for the last 13 years. Thus, in accordance with Chapter XII Rule 4 aforesaid, this Court dismisses this application as it is too late in the day to treat this application as if it could still be acted upon as this would be abusing the process of the Court. ( 9 ) THE substitution application having been eliminated what remains is the order of abatement of the writ petition. The petition has abated upon the petitioners death. ( 10 ) LET the petition abate and the interim order dt. Feb. 15, 1974 be discharged. This Court observes that acting upon the order of remand passed by the Deputy director of Consolidation dated Jan. 31, 1974 the consolidation Officer shall proceed with the matter expeditiously and finalise the proceedings in the case within one month from the date of a certified copy of the order being placed before him. ( 11 ) A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar, High Court, Allahabad. Order accordingly. .