Allahabad High Court
DEV PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner failed to appear and did not demonstrate that the cause of action remains viable.
Summary
The petitioner, Dev Prakash, filed Writ A No. 17912 of 2019 before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of U.P. and five others. The petition was listed for hearing but the petitioner’s counsel, Ramesh Kumar Shukla, did not appear on the scheduled date. The case was categorized as a writ likely to have become infructuous due to the passage of time, and a notice was issued requiring advocates to indicate whether the cause of action still survived. No indication was made by the petitioner’s counsel that the cause of action persisted, nor did they appear to argue the matter. The Court observed that the petition had been pending since 2019 and inferred a loss of interest or that the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to indicate that the cause of action survives
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non-appearance
- high court
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17912 of 2019
Dev Prakash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Shukla, C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Case is called out. None appears for the petitioner(s) to press this
petition.
It is listed in the category of "writs likely to have become infructuous
(Efflux of Time)".
A notice is also placed in the cause list 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 petitioner(s) has
appeared nor has the case been marked to indicate that the cause of
action still survives.
The matter is pending since the year 2019. It appears that either the
petitioner(s) has/have lost interest in pursuing the matter or it has
become infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 11, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…