The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition pending since 1995 for non-prosecution after noting the petitioner's counsel did not appear, applying legal maxims regarding vigilance and ending litigation.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; interim order 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:13264
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000990 of 1995
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others. Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Shukla
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 :- 13.2.2024 Vinay/-
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the pending writ petition filed in 1995 should be dismissed due to lack of prosecution by petitioner.
Applicability of legal maxims 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt' and 'Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium'.
Virendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
Saurabh Lavania
Vinay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
