Dismissed¶16

United India Insurance Company Limited Thru R.M. v. Brij Lal and 6 Ors.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2025FAFO/240/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for want of prosecution; non-appearance of appellant and its counsel across multiple listings (15.12.2017, 3.1.2018, 18.1.2018, 30.1.2018 and hearing date); appeal pending since 2006; interim order vacated upon dismissal; insurance company as appellant; First Appeal From Order No. 240 of 2006; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Coram: Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.; parties: United India Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Lal and 6 Ors. Relevant to advocates assessing consequences of persistent non-prosecution and vacation of interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Given successive adjournments on the appellant's side and its absence even in the revised call and in both rounds on the hearing date, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. ¶16

United India Insurance Company Limited Thru R.M. Vs Brij Lal and 6 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 240 of 2006

¶3

United India Insurance Company Limited Thru R.M.

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Brij Lal And 6 Ors.

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Hari Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Lalji Prasad Shukla - Ii

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

List revised. None appears on behalf of the appellant even in the revised call.

¶12

Perusal of order sheet reflects that on the earlier occasion i.e., 15.12.2017, the case was passed over on the illness slip of learned counsel for appellant and again on 3.1.2018, the case was again adjourned on the request of learned counsel for appellant.

¶13

Sbusequently on 18.1.2018, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for appellant and then on 30.1.2018 the case was adjourned on the ground of illness of learned counsel for appellant.

¶14

Today also when the case was taken up in the first round, none appears on behalf of the appellant and even in the second round also, none appears on behalf of the appellant.

¶15