The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal for non-prosecution, without examination of merits or substantial questions of law, does not create binding precedent nor clarify any legal position. Such orders hold no precedential value for future cases and do not impact underlying legal principles governing Section 100 CPC.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1231/2007 of SMT. YESHODAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA Vs MATHIHALLY NINGAPPA @ PUJARI NINGAPPA |
| CNR | KAHC010265572007 |
| Date of Registration | 21-04-2007 |
| Decision Date | 06-11-2023 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for Non-Prosecution |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value; not binding on future cases |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure Code (Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on any subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Not a persuasive authority for other High Courts or Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court expressly dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution, without considering merits or legal questions.
- Such dismissal does not set any legal precedent or clarify any issue under Section 100 CPC.
- Lawyers should not cite this order as authority for any principle of law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted repeated absence of the appellant and/or her counsel on called dates, including the date fixed specifically for appearance.
- The appeal, pending for sixteen years since 2007, was dismissed as it appeared the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the matter.
- No discussion took place regarding any facts, questions of law, or merits of the appeal.
- The order was a procedural one, grounded solely in lack of prosecution.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No representation by appellant or counsel at any stage concerned in this order.
Respondent:
- Respondents 2 & 3 were represented; Respondent 4 separately; Respondent 5 by HCGP.
- No recorded substantive arguments in view of non-appearance by the appellant.
Factual Background
- The Regular Second Appeal No. 1231 of 2007 was filed by Smt. Yeshodamma against certain respondents.
- The appeal had been pending since 2007 in the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
- On multiple occasions, there was no representation from the appellant or her counsel.
- The matter was specifically listed for appearance after prior absence, but the appellant/counsel again failed to appear.
- As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without examining the merits.
Statutory Analysis
- The matter concerns the appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), relating to Regular Second Appeals.
- No substantive interpretation or analysis of Section 100 CPC or any legal provision was undertaken, as the order was entirely procedural.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this matter.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations were issued; the procedure followed was dismissal for non-prosecution, pursuant to established practice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Order adheres to standard court practice in dismissing appeals for non-prosecution.