A High Court oral judgment reaffirms the discretionary power to dismiss long-pending appeals for non-prosecution, clarifying that revival is possible within a fixed period. The decision upholds existing practice, serving as a binding precedent for similar future dismissals in civil appellate matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1412/2001 of BHAGAT SINGH Vs MAJOR SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC010515172001 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-5500 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding (within Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing practice |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Appellate Practice |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court may dismiss a second appeal when parties show lack of interest over a prolonged period, specifically where no appearance is entered and the matter has been pending for over two decades. However, such an order may grant liberty to seek revival of the appeal within a fixed time if the appellant shows grievance against the dismissal. Prolonged dormant pendency alone, coupled with non-appearance despite notice, can justify dismissal for default to prevent indefinite clogging of the docket. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal had been pending since 1999. Notices were issued to the parties, but there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant or respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 had died. The court observed lack of prosecution and long pendency as grounds for dismissal, granting the appellant three months to seek revival in case of grievance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the High Court’s power to dismiss long-pending second appeals for default when parties fail to appear despite notice.
- Clarifies that the dismissal for non-prosecution does not preclude the appellant from seeking revival, provided such liberty is expressly granted and exercised within a defined time frame (three months in this case).
- Lawyers must monitor appeal pendency vigilantly to avoid default dismissals; immediate steps may be taken to seek revival if such orders are issued.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the absence of appearance by the appellant and respondent No.2, despite proper intimation regarding the date of hearing.
- The appeal had been pending since 1999, i.e., over two decades, indicating lack of interest in its prosecution.
- To prevent indefinite pendency of dormant matters, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
- The order included a specific liberty clause, permitting revival if the appellant demonstrates grievance, provided this is done within three months from the date of the order.
- No reference was made to prior judgments, but the ruling reaffirms established procedural norms allowing for dismissal for default in such circumstances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- No appearance; no submissions recorded.
Respondent
- No submissions against dismissal noted in the judgment; respondent No.1 is deceased.
Applicant/LRs of Respondent No.1
- Present through counsel, but no substantive arguments on the record about prosecution or dismissal.
Factual Background
The second appeal was filed in 1999 and concerned Bhagat Singh (appellant) and Major Singh (since deceased, represented by LRs). Notices regarding the hearing date were served on the appellant (and respondent No.2), but neither party appeared before the court on the scheduled date. Respondent No.1 had passed away. Noting the inaction and prolonged pendency, the court observed the appellant’s lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment; the decision relied on the general principles governing the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction and procedural discretion for dismissing matters for non-prosecution after prolonged pendency.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment restates the practice of granting liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the dismissed appeal within a stipulated period (three months) after a dismissal for default, ensuring fairness and balancing judicial efficiency with litigant rights.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing procedural law and practice regarding dismissal for non-prosecution in long-pending civil appeals.