Appeals stand dismissed for non-prosecution when the sole appellant dies and no legal representatives are substituted—this judgment upholds existing procedural norms and has binding value for similar appeals in the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2327/2000 of M/S MULKH RAJ ARUN KUMAR Vs THE CHAIRMAN,STATE AGRICULTURE |
| CNR | PHHC010426062000 |
| Date of Registration | 08-06-2000 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction on dismissal for want of prosecution |
| Type of Law | Procedural (Civil Appeals) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering procedural dismissal for non-prosecution following death of sole appellant |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that where the sole appellant dies and no legal heirs or representatives are substituted, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
- Demonstrates the importance for counsel to keep in contact with clients or their representatives, especially regarding survival of proceedings.
- Reiterates that all pending applications abate/dispose with the dismissal of the main appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded that, after counsel reported a lack of instructions, notice was issued to the appellant, but it was returned with the report that the appellant had expired.
- Counsel reiterated lack of instructions regarding substitution or further steps.
- The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, noting the appellant’s demise and no steps taken by any legal representatives for substitution as per procedure.
- All pending applications were also declared disposed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Counsel informed the court of non-receipt of instructions from client–appellant.
- No further submissions or applications regarding substitution were made.
Respondent:
- No submissions or arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The appellant, through counsel, had initially failed to provide instructions for further prosecution of the appeal.
- Notice was issued to the appellant.
- The office received the notice back with an endorsement that the sole appellant had expired.
- No information regarding substitution or continuation of the appeal was provided by legal representatives.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provision is expressly discussed in the judgment text.
- The procedure followed reflects the established practice under civil procedure for appeals abating on the death of a sole appellant where no substitution occurs.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- The judgment is authored solely by Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu.
- There is no dissenting or concurring opinion noted.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural innovations; the judgment follows established procedural practice of dismissing appeals for want of prosecution when the sole appellant has died and no legal heirs have sought substitution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law regarding dismissal for want of prosecution is affirmed.