The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that a writ petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the petitioner repeatedly fails to appear, particularly after specific notice that no further adjournments will be granted. This judgment reiterates existing judicial practice and serves as binding authority within the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/11511/2018 of BOHAR SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010815942018 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-2018 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab and Haryana High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Writ Practice/Prosecution) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to appear despite prior specific notice, indicating disinterest in prosecuting the petition. The Court held that, after repeated non-appearance and warning that no further adjournments would be granted, such petitions may be dismissed for want of prosecution. This practice upholds efficient judicial administration and prevents misuse of court time. No request for adjournment from any party would be entertained after specific direction of the Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The matter had been pending since 2018. Counsel for the petitioner previously sought an adjournment via virtual appearance, which was granted with express warning that no further adjournment would be accepted. On the adjourned date, no one appeared for the petitioner despite the matter being called twice; hence, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana; all writ practice before Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar procedural circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that failure to appear, even after express directions that no further adjournment will be granted, will likely result in dismissal of writ petitions.
- Lawyers should ensure continuous and diligent advocacy, especially when given a final opportunity to present arguments.
- Adjournment culture is discouraged by reaffirming that judicial time should not be wasted due to parties’ nonappearance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel previously sought adjournment, which was allowed with a clear warning that no further opportunities for adjournment would be given.
- On the next date, there was no appearance for the petitioner, despite the matter being called twice.
- The long pendency of the matter (since 2018) and the petitioner’s repeated absence reflected a lack of interest in prosecution.
- In light of these facts, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution to maintain judicial efficiency and discipline in court proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought adjournment previously (via virtual appearance).
Respondent (State)
- Represented by Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Factual Background
The writ petition was instituted in 2018 and was pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On the previous date, the petitioner’s counsel, appearing virtually, requested and was granted an adjournment, with the Court expressly stating that no further adjournment would be entertained. On the adjourned date, the petitioner failed to appear despite the matter being called twice, resulting in dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court specified that after a final adjournment is granted with an explicit warning, no further requests for adjournment would be entertained.
- The Court directly moved to dismissal for want of prosecution when parties do not appear after such warning.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court has followed established procedure; no new law is created or old law overruled.