JUDGMENT 1. - Disobeying orders over reaching the courts; ridiculing the authority of the Registry are virtually becoming the common phenomena which cannot be encouraged and any litigant who is found to indulge in such sort of activities disentitles himself to any relief muchless discretionary relief and this case is not an exception to it. Managing Director of the Bank tried to over reach this court and ridicule the sanctity attached to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Main appeal in this case had come up for hearing on 16.10.1992. Since we were in midst of hearing a serious murder appeal, for paucity of time order could not be dictated in the court and thereafter this file was not placed before us till the learned counsel mentioned that he has filed an application before the registry in this case. We enquired from the registry and found no such application pending there. Learned counsel then placed before us a photostat copy of the application purported to have been moved for extension of time. The application is filed after the initiation of contempt proceedings before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel has submitted, there is yet another application ready with him for filing as he knows the fate of the appeal. This court had indicated even at the time of hearing at admission stage, since learned counsel for the respondent was not even called upon to make his submission. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in details. 4. After the decision of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge pay orders were issued as early as September, 1992. Despite that they were not handed over to the respondent till the learned Single Judge directed them to be handed over to the Dy. Registrar (Judi.) who in turn was directed to hand over to the respondent after obtaining solvent surities. Under the orders of the court when the said pay orders were handed over to the party by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) and were tendered in the Bank for payment by the respondent Shri G.P. Mishra, payment was not made to him. On an inquiry we learnt that vide letter No. P.02/Admn./92-93, dated 9.2.1992 Managing Director has written to the Branch Manager to STOP PAYMENT of the aforesaid pay orders and it is therefore, that payment has not been made till date. On an inquiry we learnt that vide letter No. P.02/Admn./92-93, dated 9.2.1992 Managing Director has written to the Branch Manager to STOP PAYMENT of the aforesaid pay orders and it is therefore, that payment has not been made till date. Contempt petition are pending before the learned Single Judge and we do not want to observe about them, but suffice to say that once the pay orders were handed over to the Dy. Registrar (Judi.) under the orders of the court, no power was left in the Managing Director to stop the payment of the pay orders as the cheques were custodia legis. An application thereafter was again moved before the learned Single Judge which he refused to entertain and dismissed on 6.11.92. The order of the learned Single Judge reproduced before speaks for itself and shows the gross malafide of the Managing Director that he could dare to write a letter to the Branch Manager CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTIONS of the Court. We leave the matter here except holding that the conduct of the party has disentitled itself any relief in this matter. 5. The application therefore, stands dismissed.Application Dismissed. *******