Allahabad High Court
ISLAMUDDIN @ BANNEversusSALAHUDDIN
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's failure to appear and show survival of the cause of action.
Summary
A writ petition under Article 227 was listed as likely infructuous. The petitioner failed to appear before the court to demonstrate that the cause of action still existed. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous. The judgment clarified that if the cause of action persists, the petitioner may file an appropriate application within the limitation period. No substantive merits of the petition were considered.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition remained viable despite the petitioner's non‑appearance
- Whether the court could dismiss the petition as infructuous on procedural grounds
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- infructuous
- procedural default
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16380 of 2024
Islamuddin @ Banne
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Salahuddin
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avesh Mishra, Paritosh Sukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Birendra Pratap Yadav, Vinod Kumar
Yadav
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been listed under the heading of "Likely to be
Infructuous" cases.
2. However, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to point out the
survival of the instant writ petition. Therefore, the instant writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous.
3. It is clarified that if the cause of action still survives to maintain the
instant writ petition, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
application within limitation against the order of the date.
September 10, 2026
VR
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA RATAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…