The High Court of Rajasthan has reaffirmed that a civil writ petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner or their counsel fails to appear or instruct, with such an order constituting binding authority on procedural defaults unless otherwise provided. This judgment upholds established judicial discipline regarding litigant and counsel responsibility and sets precedent for handling similar defaults in litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CW/13690/2010 of SURESH CHANDRA DUBEY Vs STATE OF RAJ |
| CNR | RJHC020173092010 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2010 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. |
| Court | High Court of Rajasthan |
| Bench | Jaipur Bench – Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Rajasthan subordinate courts; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing procedural law/practice |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where neither the petitioner nor their counsel appears despite opportunity, or, as in this case, where counsel pleads ‘no instructions’, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. This approach upholds the principles of judicial discipline and the duty of litigants and advocates to diligently prosecute their cases. The decision reinforces that a court is not required to decide matters on merits in the absence of assistance from the parties or their counsel. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
On the previous date (22.07.2025), no one appeared for the petitioner, but a final opportunity was given. On the next date (01.09.2025), petitioner’s counsel stated ‘no instructions’. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. |
| Citations | [2025:RJ-JP:35084] |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, where similar procedural issues arise |
| Follows | Follows long-standing procedural law regarding non-prosecution |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that persistent non-appearance of petitioner or their counsel, including the counsel pleading ‘no instructions’, is sufficient ground for dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Counsels must ensure diligence in either appearing, seeking adjournment, or securing instructions from their clients.
- Courts are justified in not proceeding to the merits when parties do not participate or pursue their remedy.
- This order can be used by respondents to resist restoration or recall of dismissals made due to non-prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recited the previous instance (22.07.2025) where there was non-appearance by the petitioner and granted one more opportunity solely in the interest of justice.
- Upon the matter being listed next, and counsel for the petitioner pleading ‘no instructions’, the court concluded there was no purpose in adjourning or keeping the matter pending.
- The matter was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution, as per settled legal principles governing party and advocate responsibility.
- The order is concise, setting out the factual cause and the corresponding procedural response.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No arguments were advanced; on the adjourned date, the petitioner’s counsel pleaded ‘no instructions’.
Respondent
- No arguments recorded or required in light of petitioner’s default.
Factual Background
- The writ petition was filed in 2010 by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan.
- On 22.07.2025, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, so the court granted a final opportunity.
- On the return date, counsel appeared but stated ‘no instructions’ from the petitioner.
- The court thereupon dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment is based on established procedural law concerning non-prosecution but does not cite or interpret any statutory provision directly.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None recorded; single-judge bench.
Procedural Innovations
None indicated; the court followed standard procedure for non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.
Citations
- [2025:RJ-JP:35084]
- No additional SCC/AIR/MANU or neutral citations referenced.