ORDER Heard the party in person for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. Leave is granted. 2. The appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court passed in C.M. 1634/99 in L.P.A. No. 67/83 dated August 4, 1999. Having regard to the controversy before us we need not narrate the facts of the case. Suffice it to mention that due to not filing of the process fees in time in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the interim stay obtained by them in the appeal was vacated by order dated April 16, 1986. On May 24, 1999 about 13 years after the passing of the said order the said respondents woke up to file C.M.No. 1634/99 to set aside the said order of April 16, 1986 and to restore the interim order passed on April 4, 1983. It is brought to our notice that there was no application seeking condonation of delay in filing the said C.M. By the order under challenge the Division Bench of the High Court thought it fit to allow the C.M. of the said respondents, hence this appeal. 3. We find it difficult to sustain the order under challenge. The interim order passed on April 4, 1983 was vacated on April 16, 1986. It was not in existence for 13 years. The Division Bench revived it after such a long time without any explanation for the delay. The fact that in similar cases the interim order is in existence is neither here nor there and that cannot be a relevant consideration to restore the order after lapse of 13 years. The impugned order is obdurate and unjust. We, therefore, set aside the same. The appeal is allowed with costs. Appeal allowed. ************* Parallel Citations of other Journals : S.C. Anand v. Union of India & Ors., 2001(8) Supreme 495.