The High Court reaffirmed that non-appearance by the appellant and apparent lack of interest justify dismissal of a second appeal in default. This approach continues the established legal practice, offering clear guidance for similar future cases involving non-prosecution in civil appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/452/2023 of BOOTA RAM Vs BALKAR SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. CNR PHHC011461162022 |
| Date of Registration | 16-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 03-02-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single (Justice Vikram Aggarwal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing procedure for non-prosecution dismissal |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure/Appeals |
| Questions of Law | Whether a second appeal can be dismissed solely for non-appearance and lack of prosecution by the appellant? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court may dismiss a second appeal in default where neither the appellant nor counsel appears despite adequate opportunities and adjournments, demonstrating lack of interest in prosecuting the case. Procedural fairness is maintained by providing prior notice and adjournments before such dismissal. Dismissal in default does not preclude subsequent restoration applications, but the initial dismissal is justified on non-prosecution grounds. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal came up for hearing on multiple occasions. The appellant or his counsel did not appear on 12.12.2024 or 03.02.2025, despite notice and earlier adjournments. On 08.07.2024, counsel sought more time and matters regarding record preparation and translation were directed. No further steps were taken by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None |
| Follows | Affirms standard procedure for non-prosecution dismissal in appellate proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that repeated non-appearance and lack of prosecution by an appellant is valid ground for dismissal of a second appeal in default.
- Confirms procedural necessity: prior adjournments and specific orders regarding compliance must be reflected before such dismissal.
- Lawyers must diligently attend hearings and comply with court orders, especially for translation or record completion, to avoid dismissal for default.
- Offers a clear procedural precedent for the treatment of inactive appeals in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the matter had been listed multiple times, with explicit orders for compliance and adjournments granted at the appellant’s request.
- On 12.12.2024, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared; the case was adjourned in the interest of justice.
- On 08.07.2024, counsel requested additional time and the court set specific directions for preparation of the Lower Court Record and translations.
- No steps were subsequently taken by the appellant to prosecute the appeal or comply with those orders.
- On 03.02.2025, continued non-appearance indicated that the appellant was no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal.
- The court therefore exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal in default for non-prosecution, consistent with established appellate practice.
Arguments by the Parties
No party appeared or argued at the final hearing; no arguments by either appellant or respondent are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The appellant had filed a second appeal (RSA/452/2023) in a civil dispute. Despite the case being listed several times and specific compliance directions given on 08.07.2024, neither the appellant nor counsel appeared on the subsequent hearings, including 12.12.2024 and 03.02.2025. The appeal was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution due to continuous non-appearance.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment applies the inherent procedural power of the appellate court to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution.
- Emphasizes that repeated failure to appear and comply with procedural orders constitutes adequate ground for such dismissal.
- No interpretation or discussion of any substantive statutory provision is included in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates the importance of procedural compliance (record completion, translation) as part of prosecuting appeals.
- No new procedural rules or directions, but the sequence of adjournments and explicit compliance orders provides a clear roadmap for future cases regarding minimum procedural safeguards before dismissal in default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court has reaffirmed the established practice of dismissing appeals for non-prosecution after sufficient adjournments and repeated non-appearance.