The High Court has reaffirmed that failure by an appellant to facilitate service of notice—by not providing necessary addresses—may justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. This judgment follows established principles and serves as binding authority for matters concerning procedural compliance in appellate proceedings within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/347/2018 of GULZAR SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011206012018 |
| Date of Registration | 06-03-2018 |
| Decision Date | 07-03-2024 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J. (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Appellate Procedure/Non-Prosecution) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when appellant fails to complete service on respondents by not supplying their correct addresses. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appellate process requires the appellant to perform procedural steps, including supplying correct addresses for unserved respondents. Despite previous opportunity, the appellant failed to do so. There was also no appearance by the appellant. The Court held that in absence of compliance with service directions, and uninterested prosecution by the appellant, dismissal for non-prosecution is justified. The Court exercised its discretion to manage its docket by dismissing the matter for non-prosecution. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The Court had previously granted a final opportunity to the appellant to supply correct addresses for respondents 6 to 10, as notice could not be issued without them. The appellant took no steps towards compliance and was absent at the hearing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering procedural defaults in appellate matters. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reiterates that providing necessary information for effecting service is an indispensable procedural responsibility of appellants.
- Failure to comply with directions regarding service, especially after opportunities are granted, may result in summary dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Lawyers must ensure that all procedural prerequisites, particularly regarding service upon all parties, are meticulously fulfilled to avoid dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court referenced its earlier order, which granted a last opportunity to the appellant to supply correct addresses of respondents 6 to 10 for service of notice.
- The appellant failed to comply with directions to complete service.
- No one appeared for the appellant during the subsequent hearing.
- Considering the lack of prosecution and non-compliance with procedural orders, the Court exercised its authority to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
- This reasoning is in line with established principles mandating punctual and diligent prosecution of appeals.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No appearance; no submissions were recorded on the date of dismissal.
Respondent (State):
- Represented by Mr. Amit Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab; no recorded submissions regarding the merits, as the matter was disposed of for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
Following initiation of LPA-347-2018, the Court found that notice could not be served upon some respondents (6 to 10) as the appellant’s counsel had not provided their correct addresses, despite being granted additional time. Service on other respondents was deemed complete. However, the appellant neither provided the required particulars nor appeared at the final hearing, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment deals with application of appellate procedural rules relating to service of notice and prosecution of appeals.
- No specific statutory sections are analyzed or interpreted; the judgment enforces compliance with standard procedural requirements for appellants in appellate matters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no separate dissenting or concurring opinion. The decision reflects concurrence between both Justices.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were introduced in this judgment; the dismissal followed standard practice.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms the established law regarding procedural duties and consequences for non-prosecution of appeals.