The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that an intra-court appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn when the appellant states the issue stands redressed, without adjudicating on merits. This technical dismissal does not create binding precedent on substantive law, but records that such appeals may be withdrawn if the grounds no longer subsist. No new law was laid down or prior precedent overruled.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/747/2025 of PRAWIN KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010403672025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Not a binding precedent on merits; refers only to withdrawal procedure |
| Type of Law | Procedural |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court dismissed the intra-court appeal as withdrawn since the appellant, through counsel, informed that the issue had already been redressed. No further liberty was reserved. The judgment does not address the merits of the original dispute or appellate grounds, and merely records the disposal upon withdrawal request. This order is routine in nature and does not operate as precedent on substantive law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant filed an intra-court appeal against a single judge order dismissing his writ petition. During hearing, his counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, as the grievance had been settled. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as to substantive law; reflects appeal disposal procedure |
| Persuasive For | None |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that courts may dismiss intra-court appeals as withdrawn when counsel submits that the issue has been resolved.
- No adjudication on law or facts occurs in such withdrawals; such orders should not be cited as authority on underlying legal questions.
- Withdrawal of an appeal results in no further liberty unless specifically granted by the court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal on grounds that the core issue had been redressed.
- The Court, taking note of the request, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, without granting any further liberty or entering into the merits.
- There is no discussion or analysis of legal issues, nor are precedents cited or statutes interpreted. The judgment merely records the procedural fact of withdrawal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Sought permission of the court to withdraw the appeal, submitting that the issue involved had already been redressed.
Respondent (State):
No specific argument is recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The appellant, employed as a Lecturer, challenged an order of the Single Judge dismissing his prior writ petition. An intra-court appeal was filed against this order. During hearing, counsel for the appellant informed the Division Bench that the issue had already been redressed, and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were interpreted or discussed in the judgment. The order was procedural, based on the appellant’s request for withdrawal upon redressal of issues.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was recorded. Both judges concurred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules were established. The order follows the usual practice of dismissing appeals as withdrawn upon request by counsel where the issue has been resolved.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Routine order on withdrawal, no substantive law laid down.