Allahabad High Court
PARAM HANS TRIPATHI AND OTHERSversusKESHO PRASAD AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The writ petition (Writ‑B No. 1868 of 1983) was filed in 1983 and remained pending for over four decades. No counsel appeared for the petitioners on the scheduled hearing and the case was not marked to indicate that any cause of action survived. The High Court had issued a notice that all old cases up to 2022 would be heard and dismissed as infructuous if the parties failed to appear. Relying on that notice, the Court held that the petitioners had either lost interest or the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- The Court may dismiss a writ petition as infructuous when the petitioner fails to appear and does not indicate that a cause of action survives.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non‑appearance
- old pending case
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1868 of 1983
Param Hans Tripathi And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Kesho Prasad And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.K.Verma
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…