Allahabad High Court
RAJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
A writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous where the petitioner fails to appear and does not demonstrate that the cause of action continues to exist.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2016 which remained pending for several years. The High Court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be heard and warned that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the case marked to show that the cause of action still existed. The court observed that the petition appeared abandoned and therefore dismissed it as infructuous, while noting that the petitioner could file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still survived.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can 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
- case management
- old pending cases
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 21600 of 2016
Rajesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhola Nath Yadav, C.S.C., Santosh
Kumar Rai, Surendra Kumar Chaubey
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 petitioner 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 2016. It appears that
either the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter or it has become
infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file recall/restoration
application in case any cause of action still survives.
March 18, 2026
Vinod.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…