Allahabad High Court
RAM NARESHversusSANDEEP KUMAR
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and show the cause of action survives.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Naresh, filed a writ petition under Article 227 in the Allahabad High Court. The petition 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 later survives, the petitioner may file an appropriate application within the limitation period.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition survives despite the petitioner’s non‑appearance
- Whether the Court can dismiss a petition as infructuous on procedural grounds
Subjects
- writ petition
- Article 227
- infructuous
- procedural default
- limitation period
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9753 of 2023
Ram Naresh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sandeep Kumar
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhusudan Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Karshit Nigam, Ruduvant Pratap Singh
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…