It is settled that repeated non-appearance by an appellant after due notice and counsel’s withdrawal justifies a dismissal in default. This decision reaffirms High Court of Punjab and Haryana practice and serves as binding authority on procedural defaults in appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA No. 5044 of 2009 of Rakesh Kumar Vs Sham Lal & Ors. |
| CNR | PHHC010968292009 |
| Decision Date | 24-07-2018 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed in default |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Follows existing practice |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-appearance after due notice warrants default dismissal of an appeal. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that once notices are duly served and the appellant (or counsel) indicates unwillingness to prosecute by failing to appear and withdrawing representation, the appeal lies dormant and must be dismissed in default. This upholds the procedural mandate that a party’s duty to prosecute cannot be ignored. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | Established procedural practice under Civil Procedure rules; no specific citation required. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant and his counsel repeatedly failed to appear despite notice; counsel returned the file; notices were served on the appellant; no representation ensued. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All benches of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Standard practice of default dismissal under Civil Procedure |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that an appellant’s repeated non-appearance after proper service and counsel’s formal withdrawal equates to abandonment of the appeal.
- Reinforces that no further opportunity to be heard is required once default is established by non-appearance.
- Can be cited to resist adjournment or restoration petitions where an appellant fails to prosecute an appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court issued notices when no one appeared for the appellant.
- Counsel formally returned case papers, indicating withdrawal of representation.
- Notices served on the appellant were returned served, yet no appearance followed.
- The appellant’s failure to attend or seek restoration demonstrated lack of interest.
- The appeal was therefore dismissed in default, in line with settled procedural norms.
Factual Background
The appellant filed an appeal in 2009. On multiple dates neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared despite service of notices. Counsel subsequently returned the file, and notices sent directly to the appellant were returned served. With no representation or request for adjournment, the appeal was dismissed in default on July 24, 2018.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions or sections were cited; the decision rests on established procedural rules for default dismissal under the Civil Procedure framework.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed