The High Court of Punjab and Haryana reaffirmed that an appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the appellant fails to provide a correct address or otherwise remains unresponsive to court processes. The ruling upholds established precedent and does not create new law, confirming standard judicial procedure for non-prosecution; serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/807/2001 of RAM AVTAR Vs STATE OF HY.ETC. |
| CNR | PHHC010558272001 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-5500 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab and Haryana High Court; routine dismissal |
| Type of Law | Civil appellate procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court dismissed the second appeal due to non-prosecution after the appellant could not be served at the given address, and there was no representation from the appellant’s side. The remedy of dismissal for non-prosecution follows settled procedure, emphasizing the party’s obligation to facilitate service. The judgment demonstrates that the continuation of litigation requires active participation of appellants. All pending applications were disposed of alongside the dismissal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Notice to the appellant was returned with the report of “incomplete address.” As the notice could not be served and the appellant remained unrepresented, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution; all pending applications were disposed of. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (regarding dismissal for non-prosecution) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that appeals may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant fails to provide correct service details or is otherwise unresponsive.
- The onus remains on appellants to maintain current, complete address details to ensure the receipt of court notices.
- Lawyers should ensure complete and correct contact details are provided; otherwise, the matter may be dismissed without substantive hearing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that notice to the appellant had been returned unserved due to “incomplete address.”
- Since service could not be effected and no one appeared for the appellant, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
- All pending applications in the matter were simultaneously disposed.
- The reasoning was strictly procedural, enforcing the expectation that litigants must be diligent in facilitating court process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- None presented; no representation on date of decision.
Respondent (State):
- Represented by counsel; no substantive argument recorded due to dismissal for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
The appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court. Notice of hearing was issued but returned unserved, with the registry’s report citing “incomplete address” for the appellant. On the date of decision, no one appeared for the appellant and the matter was listed for order regarding service. The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and disposed of all pending applications.
Statutory Analysis
No substantive legal provisions were interpreted; the court applied established procedural principles regarding dismissal for want of prosecution in appellate matters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions; single-judge summary order.
Procedural Innovations
None; followed routine procedural practice for dismissal of appeals in cases of non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court affirms existing procedural law concerning dismissal for want of prosecution.