The High Court reaffirmed that when an appellant fails to appear and shows no interest in pursuing the appeal, the court may dismiss the matter for non-prosecution. This ruling upholds existing judicial practice and binds all subordinate courts. Precedential value is limited to procedural disposition where parties abandon their matter; it does not create new substantive or interpretive law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-A/608/2024 of GURCHARAN SINGH TRADING COMPANY Vs GOLDEN AGRARIAN PVT LTD AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC010457572024 |
| Date of Registration | 29-04-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for procedural dismissals in similar circumstances |
| Type of Law | Procedural (Criminal appeal/non-prosecution) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where the appellant fails to appear and does not prosecute the appeal, despite repeated calls and opportunities, the court is justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. The judgment rests solely on the lack of interest and non-appearance of the appellant before the court, with no submissions made on the merits. Such dismissal concludes the appeal process and extends to all pending applications connected to the appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The matter was called twice, yet no one appeared for the appellant, mirroring prior hearing dates. The court observed apparent loss of interest by the appellant in pursuing the appeal. The appeal and all pending applications were consequently dismissed for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court for dismissal of matters where parties fail to prosecute. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India on matters of procedural dismissal for non-prosecution. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that criminal appeals may be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant or counsel repeatedly fails to appear without explanation.
- Lawyers should ensure regular appearance or timely communication with the court to avoid summary dismissal of their appeals.
- The dismissal extends to all pending applications linked to the main appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court observed that the appeal was called twice and nobody appeared for the appellant.
- Similar lack of appearance was noted on the previous date of hearing.
- The court found that the appellant had lost interest in pursuing the appeal.
- In view of these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as a consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No arguments were advanced; no appearance despite repeated opportunities.
Respondent:
- Not specified; absence of parties noted.
Factual Background
The appeal before the High Court pertained to a dispute between the appellant and respondent. On multiple occasions, including the date of decision, neither the appellant nor their counsel appeared before the court. The failure to prosecute continued despite prior notice, indicating disinterest in pursuing appellate relief. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and disposed of all pending connected applications.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provision is interpreted or discussed in the judgment. The court acts in accordance with established procedural law regarding the dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded. The decision was delivered solely by Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines issued; the judgment follows settled practice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing law and procedural precedent on dismissal for non-prosecution.