The High Court reaffirmed its inherent power to dismiss appeals where repeated adjournments and non-appearances waste judicial time, upholding existing procedural discipline and serving as binding authority on subordinate courts in appellate matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO-2862-2019 of Suman and Another vs Naveen and Others |
| CNR | PHHC010386062019 |
| Decision Date | 23-07-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | MS. Justice Nidhi Gupta |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench (MS. Justice Nidhi Gupta) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when appellants repeatedly seek adjournments or fail to appear. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appellate court possesses inherent power to dismiss proceedings where an appellant adopts a casual and careless attitude, resulting in repeated adjournments or non-appearances. This conduct amounts to non-prosecution and wastes valuable judicial time. Where neither the appellant nor counsel shows serious interest in pursuing the appeal, dismissal is the only appropriate remedy. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court underscored that habitual adjournments and non-appearances by appellants justify dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Emphasizes the obligation on appellants and their counsel to prosecute appeals diligently.
- Reinforces that judicial time is a valuable public resource and cannot be squandered by casual litigation conduct.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The record showed multiple adjournments at the request of appellants or due to their non-appearance since 2019.
- Such conduct demonstrates an utter lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal.
- The court held that its inherent power under procedural rules allows dismissal where non-prosecution is evident.
- Dismissal was deemed the only appropriate measure to prevent further waste of judicial time.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No substantive arguments were advanced by the appellants in the course of the appeal.
Respondent
- No counter-submissions were recorded by the respondents.
Factual Background
Suman and another, as parents of the deceased, challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dated 08.08.2018 granting ₹44,52,000 compensation. Since filing the appeal in March 2019, the appellants sought adjournments or failed to appear in court repeatedly. The High Court noted the complete absence of prosecutorial zeal on their part.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principle on dismissal for non-prosecution reaffirmed.