Court dismissed a pending writ petition filed in 1995 for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence, citing legal maxims regarding vigilance and the need to end 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:13263
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001288 of 1995
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- Additional Colelctior Administration Faizabad And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Srivastava,S.C. Sitapuri
Counsel for Respondent :- C S C,Azad Khan,Mohan Singh,R N Gupta
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
Vinod Kumar
Additional Collector, Administration, Faizabad
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
