Allahabad High Court
GIRVAR SINGHversusTHE BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous due to non‑appearance and the apparent lapse of the cause of action.
Summary
The petitioner, Girvar Singh, filed a writ petition in 1983 against the Board of Revenue. The case remained pending for over four decades without any appearance by the petitioner’s counsel. The court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be heard and dismissed if the cause of action no longer existed or parties failed to appear. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the case marked to show a surviving cause of action. Consequently, the court held the petition infructuous and dismissed it, while allowing the petitioner to file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period without appearance can be deemed infructuous and dismissed.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- case pendency
- procedural law
- court dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1452 of 1983
Girvar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Board Of Revenue And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : B.D.Ojha, R.J.Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : J.P.Singh, 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…