The Calcutta High Court affirms that in the absence of proper representation and lack of prosecution by the appellant, an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution, thus upholding the established procedural law. This order clarifies that substantive remedies remain unaffected for the respondent, who may proceed to obtain the claim amount as directed. The decision reinforces, rather than alters, precedent on the court’s power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution, and holds binding precedential value for future appellate practice within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMAT/1159/2017 of THE SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL & ANR Vs ASHA DEVI |
| CNR | WBCHCA0497622017 |
| Date of Registration | 23-10-2017 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Court No. 33, Sl. No.: 96) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Type of Law | Procedural – Appellate Practice & Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where the appellant fails to properly prosecute an appeal and is not represented before the court despite being given a “last chance,” the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Such dismissal does not prevent the respondent from accessing any amount deposited in satisfaction of a claim, as allowed by the court. The proceeding exemplifies strict adherence to procedure in appellate litigation and the court’s duty to ensure efficient docket management. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was not properly represented at the hearing. The case had previously been given a “last chance” to prosecute on 26th August 2025. The respondent/claimant’s advocate was directed to take necessary steps to obtain the deposited claim amount from the court of the Commissioner. The appeal was accordingly disposed of by dismissal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, especially regarding appellate practice and procedure |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces the principle that appeals can and will be dismissed for non-prosecution, particularly after a “last chance” has been provided by the court.
- Confirms that dismissal for non-prosecution does not prejudice a claimant’s right to recover deposited claim amounts through prescribed procedure.
- Lawyers should ensure vigilant prosecution of appeals and proper representation before the court, especially when specifically warned (“last chance”).
- Illustrates the court’s continued commitment to case flow management and avoidance of undue delay.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that the appellant was not properly represented.
- The matter had previously been posted as a “last chance,” indicating the appellant had already been cautioned.
- On the appellant’s continued failure to prosecute, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
- The order included a direction allowing the respondent/claimant to approach the appropriate authority to obtain the amount already deposited against the claim.
- The judgment follows established procedural law permitting dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution and ensures that the rights of the respondent are preserved.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Not recorded; appellant was not properly represented at the hearing as per the judgment.
Respondent:
- Advocate for the respondent/claimant appeared.
- Sought necessary directions for obtaining the deposited amount of claim from the Commissioner’s court.
Factual Background
The appeal arose out of a claim in which the appellants (The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall & Anr) instituted appellate proceedings against the respondent (Asha Devi). The appellants failed to be properly represented at the hearing, despite the matter having previously been listed as a “last chance.” Consequently, the court directed the respondent’s counsel to take steps for withdrawing the deposited claim amount from the Commissioner’s court, and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment applies established appellate procedure regarding dismissal of cases for non-prosecution.
- No specific statutory section discussed or interpreted in the order itself.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines introduced; the matter was disposed of strictly in accordance with standard procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing powers of the court to dismiss for non-prosecution where the appellant fails to appear or prosecute the appeal.
Citations
No legal citations are mentioned in the judgment text provided.