Heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned Counsel, now appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Y. N. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. representing the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 2. The writ petition No. 9872 of 1984, M/s friends Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. through Nasim Bano v. State of U. P. and others, was dismissed by the Court on 6th August, 1991, on the prayer of the learned Counsel then appearing for the petitioner. After more than a year and a half, to be precise on 16th March, 1993, the petitioner moved Civil Misc. Application No. 6272 of 1993, through a new Counsel, praying for recall of the order dated 6th August, 1991, dis missing the writ petition one the prayer of the earlier Counsel. 3. On the above recall application, the Court passed an order dated 15th May, 1993, directing issuance of notice to the respondents. 4. For the respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4, the notice had already been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. Thus, the petitioner was obliged to take steps for service of notice of the ap plication on the respondent Nos. 2,5 and 6, the main contesting respondents. The lime prescribed for taking such steps is ten days from the date of the order for the issued of notice vide Rule 3 of Chapter XII of the Rules of Court, 1952. 5. Indisputably, the petitioner failed to take requisite steps within the period prescribed by the Rules. It appears that he went into deep slumber and woke up after a lapse of an interminable period of more than eight years. On 19th July, 2001, the petitioner moved the application No. 62634 of 2001, praying for grant of three days time to take steps for service of notice of the Restoration Application on the respondent Nos. 2,5 and 6 in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 15th May, 1993. 6. The above application No. 62634 of 2001 is supported by affidavit of Abdul Aziz, claiming himself to be pairokar of the petitioner. The paragraph 2 of the affidavit gives out the reason for not taking requisite steps hitherto in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 15th May, 1993. 7. 6. The above application No. 62634 of 2001 is supported by affidavit of Abdul Aziz, claiming himself to be pairokar of the petitioner. The paragraph 2 of the affidavit gives out the reason for not taking requisite steps hitherto in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 15th May, 1993. 7. For proper appreciation of the ground for lapse in taking steps set up in paragraph 2, it appears apposite to reproduce the same below:- " (2 ). That in the above noted restoration notices were issued on 15- 5-93. Due to inadver tence steps to serve respondents 2,5 and 6 could not be taken within time. " 8. The paragraph 2 of the affidavit extracted above has been verified by the deponent to be true on the basis of his personal knowledge. It is significant that the deponent of the affidavit resides at Agra, as is apparent from his description given in the affidavit. One wonders how he could acquire personal knowledge about the alleged inadvertence. Apart from this, it is striking that the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit do not disclose and identify the person whose inadver tence resulted into failure to take steps in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 15th May, 1993. On the whole, the aver ments made in paragraph 2 are absolutely perfunctory and totally vague, and do not inspire confidence. Acceptance of such perfunctory and vague ground, in the opinion of the Court, would amount to grossest abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Apart from the factor of vagueness of the averments and ground set up in paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the unex plained inordinate delay of more than eight years is another relevant factor for disentitling the petitioner for the relief prayed for in the application, specially in the absence of any prayer for condonation of delay. 10. The application is devoid of sub stance and deserves to be rejected. It is so rejected accordingly. Application rejected. .