Allahabad High Court
PARASU RAM SINGH AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition in 2011 which remained pending for over a decade. The High Court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be heard and that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared, nor was the case marked to show a surviving cause of action. The court observed that the petitioners appeared to have lost interest or the matter had become infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to file a recall or restoration application if any cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period can be dismissed as infructuous due to non‑appearance of the petitioner’s counsel.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non‑appearance
- pending case
- procedural dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 62762 of 2011
Parasu Ram Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.B.Yadav, Nisheeth Yadav, R.V.
Mishra, Shailesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., K.S.Kushwaha, Manoj Kumar
Rai, Sanjay Chaturvedi
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 2011. 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…