The High Court reiterates that an appeal may be dismissed where the appellant fails to pursue it, including instances of repeated absence and dilatory tactics. This order follows settled procedure and maintains well-established principles regarding non-prosecution. The judgment carries binding value for subordinate courts deciding similar issues.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1441/1998 of (O&M) RAMESH KUMAR Vs ISHWAR SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC010438831998 |
| Date of Registration | 30-05-1998 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Questions of Law | Whether a second appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when appellant fails to appear or prosecute the case. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court observed that the appellant was repeatedly absent and adopted dilatory tactics as noted in a prior order. Since the appellant showed no interest in pursuing the appeal, the Court exercised its authority to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. This approach is consistent with established practice when appellants do not diligently prosecute their cases. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | No representation for the appellant; previous absence and dilatory tactics documented; Court finds no intention to pursue the matter and dismisses the appeal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate forums |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that appeals (including second appeals) may be dismissed when parties consistently fail to appear or prosecute their case.
- Earlier dilatory tactics or documented non-prosecution are sufficient grounds for such dismissal.
- This order may be cited where the opposite party is absent or delaying proceedings to seek dismissal for want of prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the absence of representation for the appellant.
- It referenced its earlier order dated 04.03.2015 recording appellant’s dilatory tactics in prosecuting the appeal.
- The Court concluded, after considering all circumstances, that the appellant showed no real intent to prosecute the matter.
- Exercising its authority, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in accordance with established judicial norms and procedure.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Not present; no submissions recorded.
Respondent:
- Represented by counsel.
- No specific arguments recorded in the order.
Factual Background
- The appeal was pending before the High Court.
- The appellant repeatedly remained absent and was noted to be adopting delaying tactics, as specifically recorded in a previous order.
- On the final date, there was no representation for the appellant.
- The Court, in this context, considered all prior events and dismissed the second appeal for non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment applies and upholds existing judicial practice regarding dismissal for non-prosecution.