When a first appeal is dismissed in default of appearance, no substantive legal issue or question of law is adjudicated. Such an order merely disposes of the appeal on procedural grounds and has no precedential or binding value for future cases. It neither affirms nor overrules any precedent and cannot be cited as authority on points of law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/93/2021 of JAGAT SINGH Vs POOJA DEVI |
| CNR | UKHC010130182021 |
| Date of Registration | 23-10-2021 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED IN DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; does not create any precedent |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive; cannot be cited as authority |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- When an appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution (i.e., non-appearance of the appellant or failure to prosecute), no question of law is determined and no ratio decidendi emerges.
- Such dismissals are purely procedural and have no precedential effect.
- Lawyers should not rely on this type of order as authority for any legal proposition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The order simply records that on the date of the hearing, no one appeared for the appellant, even after the cause list had been revised.
- As a result, the court dismissed the first appeal for want of prosecution.
- There is no discussion or consideration of any legal issues, questions of law, statutory provisions, or merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments were recorded, as none appeared for the appellant and the court proceeded to dismiss for default.
Factual Background
- The case was listed as First Appeal No. 93 of 2021.
- On the scheduled date of hearing (28.10.2025), none appeared for the appellant even in the revised call.
- In view of the absence, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by the bench.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions have been discussed, interpreted, or applied.
- The dismissal is strictly procedural, governed by court practice concerning non-prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in this order.
Procedural Innovations
None; the order follows standard procedure for dismissal in default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed established procedure in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and did not address the merits, thus not affecting or changing any substantive legal precedent.