Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA KUMARversusD.D.C. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioner Surendra Kumar filed a writ petition (Writ‑B No.1384 of 1983) in the Allahabad High Court against D.D.C. and others. The petition remained pending for over four decades without any appearance by the petitioner’s counsel. The court issued a notice directing that all old cases up to 2022 be taken up and that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the case marked to indicate that a cause of action survived. The court held that the prolonged inactivity indicated loss of interest or that the cause of action 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 remains.
Issues considered
- Is the writ petition infructuous due to non‑appearance and lapse of time?
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non-appearance
- case pendency
- court procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1384 of 1983
Surendra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Niwas Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : 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.
March 18, 2026
Vinod.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…