A High Court clarified that a second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XLI Rule 17 CPC does not lay down binding law or constitute a pronouncement on the underlying legal issues; such summary dismissals are not precedents for the merits of the case. This reaffirms settled procedural principles and serves as procedural authority, not substantive law precedent, for future civil litigations.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/307/2013 of Narendra Vs Ramkumar and Ors. |
| CNR | CGHC010191702013 |
| Date of Registration | 13-06-2013 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Procedural authority only; not a precedent on substantive law |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court dismissed the second appeal as the appellant repeatedly failed to cure procedural defaults and remained absent at multiple hearings. It held that, in such cases, the only recourse is to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution. The dismissal was purely procedural and not on merits; no substantial question of law was decided. The judgment reiterates that dismissal for non-prosecution does not constitute a precedent on the legal issues raised in the appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The second appeal was pending since 2013 due to procedural defaults. Despite repeated opportunities and listings for orders on defaults (on 27.03.2025, 11.06.2025, 28.07.2025, 02.09.2025, and 06.10.2025), the appellant never appeared nor removed the default. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as no representation was made on behalf of the appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as precedent; serves only as procedural authority on dismissal for default. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts for similar procedural dismissals; clarifies no binding effect on merits. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution or default, without any decision on substantive questions of law, does not lay down any binding precedent.
- Such orders have procedural significance only and do not impact the legal rights or obligations on the merits between parties beyond the dismissal itself.
- Lawyers must ensure timely compliance with procedural requirements to avoid dismissal for want of prosecution, as restoration requires separate application and judicial discretion.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the prolonged period (since 2013) during which the default was not removed by the appellant.
- Despite multiple opportunities and listings for removing the defect, there was persistent non-appearance and non-compliance by the appellant.
- The Court concluded it had no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, in accordance with established procedural rules under the CPC.
- The dismissal was not on merits and involved no adjudication on any substantial question of law.
Arguments by the Parties
No submissions or arguments are recorded in the judgment, as neither side appeared at multiple dates, including on the final date.
Factual Background
The second appeal, filed in 2013, remained pending due to procedural defaults by the appellant. Despite being listed several times (over years), the appellant failed to appear or address the defects. There was no appearance by the appellant on any of the relevant dates, nor was any representation made. The Court thus dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on the merits.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court acted under the procedural framework enabling dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure.
- No statutes were interpreted; the order was based solely on default procedural compliance and judicial discretion to dismiss for want of prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines are articulated in the judgment. The Court simply followed established practice for dismissals on default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows settled law that dismissals for want of prosecution are not decisions on the merits and do not serve as precedent on substantive issues.