The Calcutta High Court, while affirming existing judicial practice, reiterated that when an appellant is unrepresented and the order under challenge has already been given effect to, the appeal may be dismissed. This stance upholds established procedural doctrine and is binding on all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
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 within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where the appellant is unrepresented and appears to have abandoned the proceedings, and where the impugned order stands already worked out, there is no cause for further adjudication and the appeal may accordingly be dismissed. The court took note of defects in the memorandum of appeal and the absence of the appellant as factors relevant to its decision. Since the order under challenge had taken effect and no contesting party pressed for further relief, the appeal was deemed infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was absent at the hearing; the CESC authorities and State were represented. The State’s counsel reported that the impugned order had already been given effect to. The memorandum of appeal was reported defective by the court department. The court found no reason to proceed further in the absence of representation from the appellant. |
| Citations | None supplied in the judgment text. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts when considering similar procedural scenarios |
| Follows | Recognized judicial practice regarding non-prosecution and appeals rendered infructuous |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment affirms that an appeal may be dismissed where the impugned order is “worked out” and the appellant is absent, signifying no live controversy remains.
- Defective pleadings and procedural lapses, especially when unrectified and accompanied by non-appearance, can be fatal to appellate relief.
- Lawyers must ensure prompt representation and addressing of defects in appellate filings to avoid dismissal for non-prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The bench noted non-appearance of the appellant at the hearing as the primary procedural ground.
- The CESC authorities, represented through counsel, confirmed that the order under challenge had already been acted upon (“stands worked out”).
- The court observed that the memorandum of appeal suffered from various defects, as reported by the court department.
- Given these circumstances, the court found no reason to sustain or adjourn the appeal and declared the matter infructuous, leading to dismissal.
- The application connected with the appeal was also disposed of as a consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No submissions were made; the appellant was unrepresented at the hearing.
Respondent (CESC authorities and State):
- CESC authorities’ counsel stated that the order impugned had already been worked out.
- The State was represented but specific arguments were not recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The proceedings arose from an appeal filed by Smt. Sanjita Nayak against the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. and another respondent. At the relevant hearing, no one appeared for the appellant, while both the CESC authorities and State were represented. The CESC authorities confirmed that the impugned order had already been implemented. Court records also indicated procedural defects in the memorandum of appeal. Facing no representation from the appellant and with the matter rendered academic, the court dismissed the appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not expressly mention any statutory provisions, but it applies established procedural principles regarding dismissal for non-prosecution and for matters rendered infructuous where the impugned order has already been acted upon.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or practices were established in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies settled procedural law regarding dismissal for non-prosecution and infructuousness of appellate proceedings.
Citations
No specific citations or paragraph references are provided in the judgment text.