Writ petitioner failed to appear or press the petition despite counsel being present. The Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution citing legal maxims on vigilance and ending litigation.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; interim order, if any, 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.
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1003354 of 2014
Petitioner :- Mohd. Asgar
Respondent :- Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
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 :- 16.12.2024 Mohit Singh/-
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Mohd. Asgar
Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad
Another
Saurabh Lavania
Mohit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
