Allahabad High Court
SHITALversusA.D.C. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's non‑appearance and lack of indication that the cause of action survives.
Summary
The petitioner, Shital, filed a writ petition in 1981 before the Allahabad High Court. The matter 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 no cause of action survived. Neither the petitioner appeared nor indicated that the cause of action still existed. Consequently, the court held the petition to be infructuous and dismissed it. The judgment also allowed the petitioner to file a recall or restoration application if a viable cause of action remains.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition that has remained pending for more than four decades without any appearance or indication that the cause of action survives?
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- delay
- case management
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 15764 of 1981
Shital
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
A.D.C. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : K.M. Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Triveni Shanker
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 1981. 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…