Dismissed¶14

Vinita v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/15286/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition for non-prosecution; dismissal as infructuous; non-appearance of counsel; priority hearing of oldest pending cases; notice-board warning regarding old cases up to 2022; liberty to file recall/restoration application; Allahabad High Court; Vinita v. State of U.P.; WRIT - A No. - 15286 of 2021; Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file recall/restoration application in case any cause of action still survives. ¶14

Vinita Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15286 of 2021

Vinita

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: I.P. Sing	h, Navin	Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shivam	Navin Yadav	Kumar Srivastava,

¶8

Court No. - 52

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

Case is called out. None appears for the petitioner(s). Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present.

¶11

Record goes to show that the case is listed in the category of oldest pending cases in the cause list, for priority hearing.

¶12

A notice has been placed on the notice board specifically, mentioning that "old cases up to the year 2022 shall be taken up in the first round itself. In case of non-appearance, matter shall be dismissed as infructuous or otherwise, and in the cases, where the cause of action still survives, the concerned advocates are expected to mark them accordingly in the cause list. Failure to do so, may result in its dismissal as infructuous" but, neither the counsel for the petitioner(s) has appeared nor has the case been marked to indicate that the cause of action still survives.

¶13

This matter is pending since the year 2021. It appears that either the petitioner(s) has/have lost interest in pursuing the matter or it has become infructuous.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶15

Needless to say that the petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to file recall/restoration application in case any cause of action still survives.

¶16

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶17

May 5, 2026

¶18

Jitendra/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinita v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinita v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana Richhariya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahab Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarita Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Satisharan Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Badami Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others