This Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution, noting the petitioner had not appeared while the case had been pending since 1982. The Court applied maxims regarding vigilance and the need to end litigation.
The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution; any interim order was 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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10019
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3202 of 1982
Petitioner :- Bramha
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.Sahai,U.S.Sahai 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 :- 2.2.2024 Vinay/-
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution given the lack of petitioner's appearance despite a pending duration since 1982.
Bramha
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others
Saurabh Lavania
Vinay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
