The Punjab & Haryana High Court confirmed that if an appellant is duly served but fails to pursue their second appeal for a prolonged period, the court may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. This approach upholds established precedent and reiterates the binding authority of the court to dismiss for want of prosecution in civil appellate proceedings, with practical significance for long-pending cases across all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1995/2001 of M/S SIDDARTHA WOOLLEN MILLS Vs M/S WILHELM DAGHOFER AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010521512001 |
| Date of Registration | 26-06-2001 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Appellate Practice) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a second appeal can be dismissed solely for non-prosecution when the appellant is duly served but shows no intention to pursue the matter. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when an appellant is duly served and does not provide instructions or appear through counsel, especially after an extended pendency, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Thus, the High Court is left with no option but to dismiss the second appeal for non-prosecution. This determination was made after steps such as issuing fresh notices and confirming service. The principle reaffirms the long-established power and discretion of appellate courts to dismiss appeals due to want of prosecution. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The matter pertained to a second appeal filed in 2001. On the last hearing date, none appeared for either party despite due notice. Notices were reissued; the appellant was duly served. At the hearing, appellant’s counsel stated “no instructions”. The court found that the appellant showed no further interest in the matter, which had been pending for over 24 years, and consequently dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates and applies the discretionary power of the court to dismiss a second appeal for non-prosecution when the appellant, though duly notified, fails to actively pursue the appeal.
- Lawyers should ensure timely instructions and appearances to avoid dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution, especially in long-pending matters.
- It clarifies that mere pendency or office issuance of notices does not absolve appellants from their obligation to prosecute the matter diligently.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that despite being duly served, the appellant neither appeared nor instructed counsel to prosecute the appeal, as confirmed by counsel’s “no instructions” statement.
- Efforts were made by the registry to serve both sides, and actual service on the appellant was confirmed.
- The appeal had remained pending without active steps from the appellant for over 24 years.
- In these circumstances, the court found it just to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, in line with settled legal principles and the inherent discretion of appellate courts.
- The order also disposed of any pending applications.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- On final appearance, the appellant’s counsel specifically stated “no instructions” in the matter.
Respondent (Respondents No. 3 and 4 – Bank):
- Counsel requested time to prepare, having received the assignment only the previous day.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a civil second appeal filed by the appellant in 2001 against a reversal of a trial court decree. The proceedings had been pending for over two decades. On the last date of hearing, no party appeared despite due notice. Subsequent efforts ensured that the appellant was duly served. When the matter was next called, counsel for the appellant declared “no instructions”, leading the court to conclude that the appellant had lost interest in the case, and thereby dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
The court exercised its discretionary powers under the civil appellate procedure to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant failed to appear or provide instructions despite being duly served. The judgment underscores the court’s authority to manage pending dockets and ensure timely disposal by dismissing matters where parties do not prosecute their own case.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural deviations or innovations were recorded; the court followed existing protocol for effecting service and addressing non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed established procedure and judicial discretion in dismissing appeals for want of prosecution.