Dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution by the Calcutta High Court does not result in any authoritative pronouncement on the merits of the questions of law raised; such a dismissal carries no precedential value and does not disturb existing legal principles. This procedural order is not binding on subordinate courts and cannot be cited as precedent in future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1563/2025 of SHIVAANAND SINGH AND ANR Vs MAYA CHUNDER AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0371602025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Precedent Value | None – Not a decision on merits |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on any court. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive for other courts; not to be cited as precedent. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Calcutta High Court’s order makes clear that dismissal for non-prosecution is a procedural closure that does not address or resolve any substantive legal questions.
- Such orders do not create or alter legal precedent and have no value as authority for future litigation.
- Counsel should note that voluntary withdrawal or non-prosecution does not amount to adjudication on merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that the appellants did not wish to proceed with the matter.
- Based on the appellants’ express statement, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- All related interim applications were also dismissed as a consequence.
- The Court made no pronouncement on costs or the substantive issues, and explicitly declined to make any order regarding costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants do not want to proceed with the matter.
Respondent:
- No submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The appeal (FMA 1563 of 2025) was before the Calcutta High Court.
- On the date of hearing, counsel for the appellants informed the Court that they did not wish to proceed with the matter.
- The Court, recording this submission, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution along with the related interim application. No order as to costs was made.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed established procedure by dismissing for non-prosecution upon party’s request, without making any decision on the merits.