Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4018 of 2015
Mahendra Kumar And 3 Ors. U/A-227
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Additional District Judge Court No.5 Barabanki And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhter Abbas : Counsel for Respondent(s) Shiv Poojan Maurya
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Case called out in the revised list.
No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition nor any request for pass over or adjournment of the case has been made.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
November 14, 2025
Ram.
Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Mahendra Kumar And 3 Ors.
Additional District Judge Court No.5 Barabanki And Others
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
