Allahabad High Court
CHHOTE LAL @ ACHCHHE LAL TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.THRU DIST. MAGISTRATE AMBEDKAR NAGAR AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed on merits/Rejected
- Bench
- SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Holding
The petition must be dismissed for non‑prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear or actively pursue the case.
Summary
Petitioner Chhote Lal filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 26126 of 2019 before the Allahabad High Court. No appearance was made by the petitioner or his counsel, and they expressed loss of interest in pursuing the case. The respondent's counsel was present, and the Court invoked the maxims that the law aids the vigilant and that litigation should not be prolonged without purpose. Considering the petitioner’s inaction, the Court held that the petition could not be disposed of on merits and should be dismissed for non‑prosecution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and any interim order previously granted was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear or pursue the remedy?
Subjects
- writ petition
- non‑prosecution
- dismissal
- procedural default
- vigilance
- civil procedure
- criminal miscellaneous writ
Judgment
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26126 of 2019
Petitioner :- Chhote Lal @ Achchhe Lal Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Dist. Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar And
Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Verma,Rakesh
Dwivedi,Shiv P Shukla
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Case called out. No one has put in appearance on behalf of
the petitioner to press this petition. However, learned counsel
representing side opposite is present in the Court.
2. It appears that the petitioner and the counsel engaged by the
petitioner both have lost the interest in the case and are not
interested in pursuing the petition.
3. It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:-
(i) Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (The law
assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep
over their rights); and
(ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (In the interest of the
society as a whole, the litigation must come to an end).
The above said two maxims are sister provisions, which would
highlight and spotlight that the party seeking remedy before the
Court should be vigilant, otherwise, the law would not come to
their help and there should be end to litigation.
4. Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels that the petition
should not be disposed of on merits and should be dismissed for
non-prosecution. Accordingly, it is dismissed for non-
prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 9.12.2024
Mohit Singh/-
Digitally signed by :-
MOHIT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…