This court dismissed a writ petition for being infructuous due to efflux of time and lack of prosecution, noting no reason to presume cause of action survives.
Instance not briefed to press the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29797 of 1998
Petitioner :- Mohd. Siddique And Another Respondent :- Shri Sultan Ahmad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Sabir Ahmad,Sageer Ahmad
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Case called out in revised list.
No one is present on behalf of the petitioners to press the petition. However, learned Standing Counsel for the State is present.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.04.1998 passed by respondent No. 4.
The matter is very old one and is pending since 1198. It appears that by efflux of time either cause of action survives no more or for any other reason, the matter has rendered infructuous, that is why none is present to press this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as infructuous as well as for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
In case, cause of action still survives and the petition has not become infructuous, the petitioners will be at liberty to move recall application within thirty days from today.
Order Date :- 15.12.2020 SY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous due to efflux of time and want of prosecution.
Whether the interim order stands vacated.
Mohd. Siddique
Sultan Ahmad
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
