Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD YAMINversusAHSAAN KHAN
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's failure to appear.
Summary
A writ petition under Article 227 was listed as likely to be infructuous. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner 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 a fresh application within the limitation period. No substantive merits of the petition were considered.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition remained viable for adjudication in the absence of the petitioner's representation
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- infructuous dismissal
- procedural default
- court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6788 of 2015
Mohammad Yamin
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ahsaan Khan
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aijaz Ahmad Khan, Anil Kumar
Shukla, Himanshi Nausran
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.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
September 8, 2026
VR
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA RATAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…