Allahabad High Court
MANI RAJversusTHE D.D.C. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioner, Mani Raj, filed writ petition No. 10381 of 1983 before the Allahabad High Court challenging actions of the D.D.C. and others. The matter had been pending since 1983 and was listed under the oldest pending cases for priority hearing. The court issued a notice that old cases up to 2022 would be taken up and dismissed as infructuous if parties failed to appear or indicate that a cause of action survived. Neither the petitioner's counsel appeared nor was the case marked to show a surviving cause of action. Consequently, the court held that the petition had become infructuous. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to file a recall/restoration application if any cause of action remains.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous due to non-appearance of counsel and lack of indication that the cause of action survives
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non-appearance
- cause of action
- case management
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 10381 of 1983
Mani Raj
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The D.D.C. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : A.P. Tiwari, S.S. Tripathi, V.B.L.
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.S. Misra, S.C.
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 1983. 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.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
May 7, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…