The appellate court reaffirmed that an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, owing to the appellant’s repeated non-appearance, is not an adjudication on the underlying merits. No substantive questions of law were addressed, and the dismissal is procedural rather than precedential for future similar legal issues.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/264/2017 of HARICHAND Vs JASVIR SINGH @ JASSI & ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011194762017 |
| Date of Registration | 17-02-2017 |
| Decision Date | 18-07-2017 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER, MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER, HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value on substantive issues; procedural dismissal |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Appellate |
| Ratio Decidendi | The appeal was dismissed solely due to the continued absence of the appellant, with no representation by or on behalf of the appellant on the day of decision as well as the prior date. The court expressly did not enter into the merits of the case, rendering the order procedural in nature. No substantive legal question or authority was determined. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant’s counsel failed to appear on multiple dates, leading to dismissal for want of prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on any subordinate or coordinate court for questions of law |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive for other courts on substantive legal or procedural issues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that appeals may be dismissed purely on procedural grounds when appellants or their representatives are repeatedly absent.
- Highlights that such dismissals are not decisions on merits and do not create substantive precedent.
- An order of this nature cannot be cited for any proposition of law or fact in unrelated proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the lack of representation from the appellant’s side on the day of the hearing, as well as during the previous listed date.
- In view of continued absence, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No legal or factual issues were decided; the merits or substantive questions were not considered.
- The dismissal is characterized as purely procedural.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- None presented; no one appeared for the appellant; no submissions noted from any party.
Factual Background
The appeal was filed by the appellant but, on multiple dates, there was no representation from his side. The High Court noted both the current and previous non-appearances and proceeded to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. No submissions were made on merits, and no factual narrative was discussed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural norm affirmed that absence of appellant can lead to dismissal for want of prosecution.