A second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellants failed to appear before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; the case reaffirms that procedural default leads to disposal without adjudication on merits and carries no substantive precedential value.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2093/1993 of GURJANT SINGH Vs GURMAIL SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC010263341993 |
| Date of Registration | 17-10-2008 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Precedent Value | No substantive precedent value; disposed for non-prosecution |
| Type of Law | Civil Appellate Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court dismissed the second appeal as none appeared on behalf of the appellants despite repeated calls. The decision was not on merits but was procedural, resting solely on the failure to prosecute the appeal. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed. No legal principle or substantive law was determined or clarified in the order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellants failed to appear before the court despite repeated calls. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and disposed of pending applications, if any. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None, as no legal issue was adjudicated. |
| Persuasive For | None, as the order was procedural, not substantive. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to appear.
- No legal issue was considered or decided; no new legal principle established.
- The dismissal does not create precedent or affect substantive law.
- Lawyers should ensure diligence in appearance or move for restoration if dismissed for non-prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court called the matter several times for appearance of the appellants.
- In the absence of their counsel or any representation, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
- The court expressly limited its order to procedural grounds; there was no consideration of substantive legal rights or issues.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- No arguments advanced; none appeared.
Respondent:
- Represented by counsel.
Factual Background
The matter arose as a second appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, registered as RSA-2093-1993. On the date fixed, none appeared for the appellants despite repeated calls. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and disposed of any pending applications accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were interpreted or discussed in the text of the order.
- The dismissal was based on procedural practice regarding non-appearance and non-prosecution in appellate proceedings.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None; single-judge order with no separate opinions.
Procedural Innovations
- None reflected in the order; standard procedure for dismissal for non-prosecution was followed.
- No new procedural precedent set.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Dismissal for non-prosecution follows established appellate procedure.