Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | AS/497/2008 of M/s. Rama Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Asst. Accounts Officer APSEB |
| CNR | HBHC010431682008 |
| Date of Registration | 13-06-2008 |
| Decision Date | 15-03-2019 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Sri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud (concurring) |
| Court | High Court for State of Telangana |
| Bench | Division Bench (Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J & T.Amarnath Goud, J) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure – appellate practice |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of both the appellant’s counsel on the date of hearing and the non-filing of the requisite paper book, as previously directed by the Court. The Court noted that an adjournment was previously granted at the appellant’s request for preparing the paper book. The repeated lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal justified its dismissal. Pending miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of as infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal challenged an order and decree dated 19-12-2007 of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak. On 25-02-2019, the case was adjourned at the appellant’s request for filing the paper book. On the next date, neither appellant’s counsel appeared nor was the paper book filed, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of Telangana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (on procedural law for non-prosecution) |
| Follows | Established civil procedure practice regarding non-prosecution of appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment expressly affirms that an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to appear or comply with procedural requirements (such as filing the paper book), even after reasonable opportunities are provided.
- Lawyers should ensure timely compliance with all procedural directions (including preparation and filing of the paper book) to avoid dismissal of appeals.
- Counsel should note that the absence at hearing and lack of prosecution can be a ground for outright dismissal without adjudication on merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- After granting an adjournment to the appellant’s counsel for preparation of the paper book, neither did the counsel appear nor was the paper book filed on the next scheduled date.
- Acknowledging the absence and non-compliance, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
- Pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered disposed as infructuous alongside the main appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments by the parties were recorded in the judgment; neither counsel for the appellant nor for the respondents were present at the hearing.
Factual Background
An appeal was lodged by M/s. Rama Spinners Pvt. Ltd. against an order and decree dated 19-12-2007 of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak. The appeal remained pending due to non-filing of the paper book. On the prior adjourned date, the appellant’s counsel had requested time for filing the paper book. On the date of final consideration, there was neither appearance by the appellant’s counsel nor compliance with the Court’s direction regarding the paper book, leading to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment reflects application of procedural rules governing appellate practice, specifically the requirement of diligent prosecution and the obligation to file paper books as directed by the Court.
- No specific statutes were cited or interpreted, but the decision invokes the Court’s inherent power to dismiss for default/non-prosecution where procedural requirements are not fulfilled.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud concurred with the dismissal for non-prosecution.
- No separate concurring or dissenting opinion was recorded on legal grounds.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were announced in the judgment. The order follows standard procedural practice regarding non-prosecution dismissals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation of existing judicial practice on dismissal for non-prosecution.