Mohar Singh v. State

1. On 23^^ September, 2016 this Court passed the following order: "A perusal of the order sheet would reveal that no steps are being taken for service of respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Further after belated steps when respondent No.2 was directed to be served through bailable warrants, the petitionerfailed to file the process fee. Petitioner has not even taken steps for service ofrespondent No.2 by way ofaffixation. Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to serve the respondent No.2 by filing fresh process fee within one week pursuant whereto bailable warrants in the sum of 0,000/- be issued in the name of respondent No.2 to be executed through the SHO concerned. Respondent No.2 be additionally served through affixation returnable on lO"^ February, 2017 subject to a consolidated cost of T[5],000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week. "

2. Despite number of opportunities and despite imposing cost on 23 September, 2016 neither cost has been paid nor steps have been taken for service ofrespondent No.2.

3. Petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.