Allahabad High Court
SIOKHRAM AND ANOTHERversusD.D.C. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition in 1983 which remained pending for over four decades. The High Court issued a notice directing that all old cases up to 2022 be heard and that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Neither the petitioners' counsel appeared nor was the case marked to show that a cause of action survived. Consequently, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it. The Court noted that the petitioners may file a recall or restoration application if a 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 counsel and lack of indication 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 - B No. - 1512 of 1983
Siokhram And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Km. Sharda Chauhan
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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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…