The court confirms that where neither an appellant nor their counsel appears or demonstrates diligence, a second appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution after adequate opportunities are provided. This judgment upholds the established judicial practice and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/547/2017 of KULDEEP SINGH Vs JAGPAL SINGH & ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011308972017 |
| Date of Registration | 30-01-2017 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure—Appellate Practice |
| Questions of Law | Whether a second appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance and lack of interest from the appellant and their counsel. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court observed that despite multiple opportunities and adequate notice to both appellant and their counsel, there was complete non-appearance and lack of prosecution of the second appeal. The appellant’s approach was found to be utterly casual and careless, amounting to a waste of valuable judicial time. The court held that in such circumstances, it has no option except to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, reaffirming the court’s discretion in ensuring the efficient administration of justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant filed a second appeal against a judgment reversing a trial court decree. Despite repeated notices and intimation through email and phone, neither the appellant nor counsel appeared on several dates. The office reported proper service of notice. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts as an example of efficient case management and exercise of inherent discretion |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that repeated non-appearance and lack of diligence by an appellant or counsel can lead to dismissal of a second appeal for non-prosecution.
- The court will not indefinitely keep a matter pending when parties are disinterested, even in the substantive appellate jurisdiction.
- Lawyers must be vigilant in tracking dates and communications to avoid summary dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the chronology of events and the steps taken to afford the appellant and their counsel ample opportunities to attend the proceedings.
- Noted that notice of motion was properly issued, and both email and telephonic communications were made to inform the counsel about scheduled hearings.
- Observed that despite every opportunity and adequate notice, neither appellant nor counsel appeared or took steps to advance the case.
- Emphasized that valuable public time was wasted, leading the court to conclude that there was no interest in pursuing the matter.
- Exercised discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, consistent with the interest of justice and judicial efficiency.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner/Appellant
- No appearance; arguments not advanced due to non-representation.
Respondent
- Present through counsel; no specific submissions recorded regarding merits or procedure due to the nature of the dismissal.
Factual Background
The appellant, Kuldeep Singh, filed a second appeal challenging the appellate reversal of a trial court decree by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Notice of motion was properly served, and the court made repeated attempts to ensure the appellant and counsel were informed of hearing dates through email and telephone. Despite these efforts, neither the appellant nor counsel appeared, prompting the court to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment turned on procedural principles relating to the court’s authority to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution. No specific statutory sections were expressly analyzed, but the court’s inherent power and standard case management practices under civil procedure were implicitly invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were announced; the court acted within established procedural norms regarding non-prosecution dismissals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms established principles regarding dismissal of cases for non-prosecution.