JUDGMENT (A.M. Sapre, C.J.) Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads no instructions and wants to withdraw from the case as he had got no instructions from his client. We record his statement. We have perused the records of the case with the assistance of Mr. Manoj Kr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. On 20th August, 2013, this Court was pleased to pass the following order : “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner as to the quantum of liability, the petitioner will pay the entire amount claimed by the Bank as due, on or before 31.12.2013. In case the petitioner fails to make the said payment, the petition may be treated to be dismissed. List again on 09.01.2014, as prayed. Interim order to continue, subject to compliance of above undertaking.” Leaned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner has not ensured compliance of the order dated 20th August, 2013 inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to deposit any money till date. We have, therefore, no option but to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to ensure compliance of the Court’s order. We cannot permit the petitioner to enjoy the interim stay granted without ensuring compliance of another conditional stay order. We cannot, therefore, countenance such kind of conduct of the litigant. As a consequence, the petition fails on two counts, first for want of non-appearance and second for non-compliance of conditional stay. All interim orders passed by this Court from time to time in the past are hereby recalled as if not passed. No cost.