When an appellant is unrepresented, fails to rectify defects in the memorandum of appeal, and the impugned order has already been acted upon, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal without adjudicating the merits. This judgment upholds existing procedural precedent and reiterates strict compliance with appeal procedures under the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction, and can be cited as binding authority on maintainability and procedural requirements in appellate practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAT/1357/2025 of SANJITA NAYAK Vs THE CALCUTTA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD AND ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCA0392832025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, HON’BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | HON’BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, HON’BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI |
| Precedent Value | Binding in the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court on procedural dismissal for non-prosecution and defects |
| Type of Law | Procedural / Appellate Practice |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
In cases on the appellate side, when the appellant is not represented, various reported defects in the appeal papers are unrectified, and the respondent demonstrates that the impugned order has already been fully complied with or worked out, the court may dismiss the appeal. The appellate process is strictly governed by procedural requirements, including representation and removal of defects notified by the Registry or Department. Failure to appear and cure such defects precludes further adjudication. The dismissal is without consideration on merits, and ancillary applications stand disposed of consequently. This policy enforces discipline and efficiency in the Court’s docket and affirms procedural requirements as jurisdictional thresholds. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was unrepresented on the day of hearing. The Department reported several defects in the memorandum of appeal, which were not rectified. The CESC authorities, respondents in the case, represented through counsel, submitted that the order being appealed against had already been worked out. The State and CESC were present; however, in the absence of representation for the appellant and unresolved defects, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. |
| Citations | Not specified in the judgment |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts regarding dismissal for non-removal of defects and non-prosecution |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reinforces that if a memorandum of appeal contains defects reported by the Department and the appellant does not appear to cure them, the court can dismiss the appeal without going into the merits.
- Dismissal is justified even more when the impugned order has already been fully complied with (“worked out”).
- Lawyers must ensure timely compliance with registry requirements and personal appearance; non-compliance may lead to outright dismissal.
- The Court’s dismissal of ancillary applications (such as CAN 1/2025) follows automatically from the dismissal of the main appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the absence of representation for the appellant at the time of hearing.
- It recorded the Department’s report about various defects in the presentation of the memorandum of appeal.
- On submission of the CESC authorities (respondents) that the impugned order stood “worked out,” the court deemed the continuation of the appeal unnecessary.
- In light of both procedural lapses (unrectified defects) and lack of prosecution, as well as the respondent’s submission regarding the impugned order’s implementation, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
- Any pending applications tied to the appeal (CAN 1/2025) were also dismissed as a necessary consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- None stated. (No appearance; no submissions.)
Respondent (CESC authorities and State):
- The CESC authorities, through counsel, submitted that the order impugned had already been worked out.
- Both the State and CESC were represented and present at the hearing.
Factual Background
The appeal was filed by Smt. Sanjita Nayak against the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. and another respondent. On the scheduled date of hearing, the appellant was not represented. The Department reported several defects in the memorandum of appeal, which had not been rectified. At the hearing, the respondents (State and CESC authorities) were represented, and the CESC authorities submitted that the original order being appealed against had already been fully acted upon. In light of these circumstances, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment turns on procedural compliance in filing and prosecuting appeals, specifically the requirement to rectify defects reported by the Department under applicable High Court rules. No statutory interpretation beyond this procedural framework was discussed or applied in the text of the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded. The judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations were articulated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed strict adherence to procedural requirements in appellate practice, consistent with existing procedural law.
Citations
No specific SCC, AIR or other citations are provided in this judgment.