The court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution after noting the petitioner’s repeated absence; no determination on merits was made, and the precedent value is accordingly limited to procedural aspects rather than substantive law. This order affirms existing practices and holds limited persuasive authority for similar circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/32688/2024 of UNION OF INDIA Vs EX SPR DEVA NAND AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011680182024 |
| Date of Registration | 03-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, VIKAS SURI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI |
| Precedent Value | Procedural; limited to dismissal for non-prosecution |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution following the petitioner’s repeated non-appearance, without adjudication on the merits. The order is procedural in nature and does not lay down any new legal principle or statutory interpretation. Its utility is limited to reinforcing the authority of courts to dismiss matters when parties do not prosecute them. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner failed to appear on the last date of hearing as well as on the present date. The court, recording these repeated non-appearances, dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | The order is binding only regarding the procedural aspect of dismissal for non-prosecution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. |
| Persuasive For | May be cited in similar factual scenarios in other High Courts regarding repeated non-appearance leading to dismissal. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that a writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner repeatedly fails to appear.
- Reinforces procedural discipline without entering into the merits of the case.
- Lawyers must ensure diligent representation to avoid dismissal for want of prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The bench noted the petitioner’s absence on the last date as well as on the day of decision.
- Upon recording the repeated non-appearances, the bench exercised its discretion to dismiss the matter for non-prosecution.
- No discussion or adjudication occurred on the substantive questions of law or facts of the case.
- The reasoning was limited to the necessity of prosecuting one’s case to obtain relief from the court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No arguments presented, as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Respondent
- Mr. Parveen, Advocate, appeared for respondent no. 1.
- No submissions recorded from the respondent in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Union of India, filed a writ petition. The case record reflects that on the previous hearing date, no one appeared for the petitioner. On the scheduled date of decision, again, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Due to this recurring non-appearance, the bench dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Dismissal for non-prosecution is a settled procedural norm reaffirmed by the court here.