Petitioner failed to appear and pursue a writ petition pending since 1981. Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution based on legal maxims requiring diligence. Interim orders vacated.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:43859
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 617 of 1981
Petitioner :- Sri Ram
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sitapur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K.Srivastava,A.S. Parmar,R.R. Upadhayaya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(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).
The above said two maxims are sister provisions, which would highlight and spotlight that the party seeking remedy before the Court should be vigilant, otherwise, the law would not come to their help and there should be end to litigation.
Order Date :- 7.7.2023 Vinay/-
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Sri Ram
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sitapur
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
