Petition dismissed for non-prosecution as petitioner and counsel were absent and showed no interest in pursuing the matter, citing maxims regarding vigilance and ending litigation.
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. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1001590 of 2012
Petitioner :- Mukesh
Respondent :- Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3 Unnao And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar
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 :- 9.12.2024 Mohit Singh/-
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Mukesh
Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3 Unnao And Ors.
Saurabh Lavania
Mohit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
