Allahabad High Court
DEEP CHANDversusHARMIT KAUR
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's failure to appear.
Summary
The petitioner, Deep Chand, filed a writ petition under Article 227 in the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue that the cause of action still existed. The court, noting the lack of representation, classified the petition as likely to be infructuous and dismissed it on that ground. The judgment clarified that if the cause of action persists, the petitioner may file a fresh application within the prescribed limitation period. No substantive merits of the petition were considered.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedural step when a petitioner fails to appear to argue the survival of a writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- Article 227
- infructuous
- procedural default
- limitation period
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 796 of 2017
Deep Chand
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Harmit Kaur
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Utpal Chaterjee
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…