When a writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and without adjudicating any question of law or fact, such an order does **not** establish new law, clarify or reaffirm a substantive legal principle, nor create binding precedent. This judgment upholds existing procedural practice and has no precedential value for future cases. Useful as procedural context; not a substantive authority for future litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CW/13690/2010 of SURESH CHANDRA DUBEY Vs STATE OF RAJ |
| CNR | RJHC020173092010 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2010 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. |
| Court | High Court of Rajasthan |
| Bench | Single Judge (S.B. – Single Bench) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None (Procedural dismissal, not substantive law) |
| Persuasive For | None |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits does not constitute precedent.
- Such orders cannot be relied upon for substantive propositions of law.
- Lawyers should distinguish between substantive dismissals (on merits) and procedural dismissals (like non-prosecution) when citing cases before courts.
- Ensures courts’ time is not occupied by parties unwilling or unable to proceed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted prior absence of the petitioner and granted an additional opportunity in the interests of justice.
- On the rescheduled date, counsel for the petitioner reported “no instructions.”
- The writ petition was consequently dismissed for non-prosecution, with all pending applications disposed of.
- No adjudication on facts or law took place.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No submissions were made; petitioner not present and counsel pleaded “no instructions.”
Respondent:
- Not recorded; no participation indicated or submissions summarized.
Factual Background
- The petition was filed in 2010 before the Rajasthan High Court (CW/13690/2010).
- The court had earlier granted adjournment as the petitioner was absent.
- On the final listed date, petitioner’s counsel appeared but reported “no instructions.”
- The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution without any discussion of merits or factual background.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted in the text of the judgment, as the order is confined to procedural dismissal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were established in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Established procedural practice affirmed (dismissal for non-prosecution does not decide questions of law or fact).
Citations
- [2025:RJ-JP:35084] (Neutral citation)
- No reportable or substantive legal citation provided.