The court reiterated that a second appeal dismissed solely for non-prosecution does not result in an adjudication on the merits of the case. This outcome maintains established precedent regarding procedural defaults and signals to subordinate courts the procedural effect of non-appearance by appellants. The judgment upholds prevailing legal interpretations and serves as binding authority on procedural defaults in the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2093/1993 of GURJANT SINGH Vs GURMAIL SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC010263341993 |
| Date of Registration | 17-10-2008 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on procedural dismissal for non-prosecution in this jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | No appearance by the appellants at the hearing despite repeated calls; respondents were represented by counsel; court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts where similar procedural defaults arise |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that repeated non-appearance results in dismissal for non-prosecution without consideration of merits.
- Highlights the importance of ensuring diligent prosecution at the appellate stage, especially in second appeals.
- Serves as a reminder that applications pending along with the appeal stand disposed with the main case’s dismissal.
- Lawyers must advise clients and colleagues of the consequences of failing to appear, even at post-admission stages.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court took note of the continuous absence of the appellants despite repeated calls.
- There was representation for the respondents, but no one appeared for the appellants.
- As per established procedural law, absence of the appellant in appeal proceedings warrants dismissal for non-prosecution.
- The court accordingly ordered summary dismissal of the second appeal and disposed of pending applications, if any.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No arguments presented; appellants did not appear despite repeated calls.
Respondent:
- Represented by counsel; no particular arguments recorded in the judgment as the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
- The matter was a second appeal (RSA-2093-1993) between Gurjant Singh (Appellant) and Gurmail Singh (Respondent, since deceased, through L.Rs).
- The case was scheduled before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
- On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants despite repeated calls.
- The respondent was represented by legal counsel.
- As a result of the appellants’ non-appearance, the court dismissed the second appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not specifically cite statutory provisions, but the procedural action is in consonance with the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution if appellants fail to appear.
- No statutory interpretation or substantive legal provisions were discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There were no dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment does not introduce new procedural requirements. It follows established practice concerning non-appearance and dismissal for non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.