Allahabad High Court
DILEEP KUMARversusVINOD KUMAR AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- Y K SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petition filed by Dileep Kumar against Vinod Kumar and seven others was listed before the Allahabad High Court under Article 227. The petitioner’s counsel, Anil Kumar Pathak and Chandra Pratap Singh, failed to appear before the court. The respondent’s counsel, Satyam Mishra, was present and represented the respondents. The court observed that there was no appearance or any step taken by the petitioner to prosecute the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution and vacated any interim order that might have been in force. The dismissal reflects the court’s procedural stance that a petition cannot proceed without active prosecution by the petitioner.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedural consequence when a petitioner fails to appear or prosecute a petition before the High Court?
Subjects
- Article 227
- petition dismissed
- want of prosecution
- procedural law
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6028 of 2025
Dileep Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Vinod Kumar And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Pathak, Chandra Pratap
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Satyam Mishra
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Case called out in the revised list.
None appears for the petitioner to press the petition.
Sri Aryan Narayan, holding brief of Sri Satyam Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondents is present.
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
May 14, 2026
RKK/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…