Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44552 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3421 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Sheeba Siddiqui And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jayshanker Shukla Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Case called out in revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition. However, learned State Counsel is present. 2. On 12.12.2024 this Court passed the following order:- "Adjourned on the illness slip of Sri Satyendra Nath Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners. List this case in the month of January 2025. It is also made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned and appropriate order would be passed in first call, even in absence of learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is in view of the age of the present petition." 3. On 07.01.2025 the following order was passed:- "1. Shri S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has sought adjournment on the ground of his ill-health. 2. In the interest of justice, the case is passed over for the day. Let it be listed in 2nd week of Feb., 2025." 4. On 23.07.2025 the following order was passed:- "Shri Satyendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has sent his illness slip today. In view of the above, list this case on 31.07.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including the ground of illness and an appropriate order would be passed even in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner in the first call." 5. It appears that the petitioners and the counsel engaged by them have lost the interest in the case and are not interested in pursuing the petition, which is pending since 2019. 6. It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:- (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). 7. 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. 8. Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels that the petition should not be disposed of on merits and should be dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, it is dismissed for non- prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench