Smt Manpat v. a.D.C.and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
A writ petition filed in 1984 was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear despite counsel for the respondent being present.
What did the court decide?
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; any interim order stands vacated.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:43849
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3637 of 1984
Petitioner :- Smt Manpat Respondent :- A.D.C.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.C.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
- Case called out in revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. However, learned counsel representing side opposite is present in the Court.
- It appears that the petitioner and the counsel engaged by the petitioner both have lost the interest in the case and are not interested in pursuing the petition, which is pending since 1984.
- It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:-
(i) Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (The law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights); and
(ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (In the interest of the society as a whole, the litigation must come to an end).
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Smt Manpat
- respondent
A.D.C.
Coram
Saurabh Lavania
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIB/3637/1984
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court