The court dismissed the application for want of prosecution as the applicant's counsel failed to appear while the Government Advocate was present. The interim order, if any, 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4236 of 2018
Ram Gulam @ Lamboo And Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shyam Kinkar Pandey, Masum Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Avadhesh Mishra
Court No. - 23
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
List revised.
Case called out.
None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this petition.
Learned A.G.A. is present.
As none appears on behalf of the applicant in the revised list, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.)
November 3, 2025
Shukla
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Gulam @ Lamboo And Others
Rajeev Bharti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
