Allahabad High Court
BHOLA AND OTHERSversusPATESHWARI AND TWO OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The second appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The second appeal filed by Bhola and others, originally instituted in 1982, remained pending for over four decades. No counsel appeared for the appellants, and the case was not marked to indicate that the cause of action still survived, despite a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be dealt with and dismissed as infructuous if unmarked. The High Court noted the prolonged inactivity and inferred that the appellants had lost interest or the matter had become infructuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal as infructuous, while leaving open the possibility for the appellants to file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still exists. The judgment was delivered by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan on May 7, 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a second appeal pending since 1982 can be dismissed as infructuous due to non-appearance of counsel and lack of indication that the cause of action survives.
Subjects
- procedural law
- dismissal for non-appearance
- infructuous appeal
- cause of action
- case management
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SECOND APPEAL No. - 2573 of 1982
Bhola And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Pateshwari And Two Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.N. Tripathi, P.K.Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : U.N. Pandey
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Case is called out. None appears for the parties.
The case is listed in the category of oldest pending cases in the cause
list, for priority hearing.
A notice has been placed on the notice board specifically,
mentioning that "old cases up to the year 2022 shall be taken up in
the first round itself. In case of non-appearance, matter shall be
dismissed as infructuous or otherwise, and in the cases, where the
cause of action still survives, the concerned advocates are expected
to mark them accordingly in the cause list. Failure to do so, may
result in its dismissal as infructuous" but, neither the counsel for the
appellants has appeared nor has the case been marked to indicate that
the cause of action still survives.
Record shows that the matter is pending since the year 1982. It
appears that either the appellants have lost interest in pursuing the
matter or it has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
Needless to say that the appellants shall be at liberty to file
recall/restoration application in case any cause of action still
survives.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
May 7, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…