The High Court reiterates that appellate courts may dismiss a regular second appeal at the preliminary stage for non-prosecution if appellants repeatedly fail to appear; upholds established judicial practice and serves as binding precedent for subordinate courts in civil matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/3469/2023 of ST JOSEPH’S INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AND OTHERS Vs KULDEEP TRADING COMPANY |
| CNR | PHHC010730942021 |
| Date of Registration | 30-10-2023 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; reaffirms existing practice |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that persistent non-appearance of the appellants at the preliminary hearing stage demonstrates a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. In such circumstances, the only recourse available to the court is dismissal for non-prosecution. The order reflects a procedural mechanism whereby judicial resources are conserved, and dockets cleared where parties show disinterest. The decision therefore does not touch upon the merits of the case but affirms the court’s inherent power to dismiss for non-prosecution at an early stage. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal was at the preliminary hearing stage, with notices of motion yet to be issued. On multiple dates, no appearance was made for the appellants despite repeated calls. The court adjourned the matter several times in the interest of justice. Ultimately, due to continued absence, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate forums in similar procedural contexts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Lawyers should ensure consistent appearance, especially at preliminary stages, or risk dismissal for non-prosecution.
- The judgment demonstrates that repeated non-appearance, even before notice of motion is issued, is sufficient ground for dismissal.
- Dismissal at the threshold does not touch merits; however, the court is not obliged to wait indefinitely for parties who do not appear.
- Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of with the main matter when dismissal for non-prosecution occurs.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that on several occasions, including the present one, no one appeared for the appellants despite repeated opportunities.
- Multiple adjournments had already been granted in “the interest of justice,” but the appellants continued to remain absent.
- The court concluded that the appellants were not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
- Accordingly, the court exercised its procedural discretion to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, emphasizing the authority of the court to maintain docket discipline and efficiency.
Arguments by the Parties
None recorded in the judgment, as no party appeared for the appellants, and the respondent’s arguments are not noted.
Factual Background
The case concerned a regular second appeal (RSA-3469-2023) filed by St. Joseph’s International School and Others against Kuldeep Trading Company. The matter remained at the preliminary hearing stage as no notice of motion had yet been issued. Despite repeated adjournments and the matter being called twice on each occasion, the appellants failed to appear on multiple dates. Ultimately, in the absence of prosecution from the appellants, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not explicitly discuss statutory provisions, but the dismissal is consistent with the principles of procedural law allowing courts to dismiss matters for non-prosecution when parties fail to appear.
- The decision does not interpret or apply substantive statutory provisions but relies on the procedural discretion of the court in appellate matters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded. The judgment was delivered solely by Justice Alka Sarin.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment does not prescribe new procedural precedents, but reinforces the established procedure that repeated non-appearance justifies dismissal for non-prosecution at the preliminary stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirms established practice regarding dismissal for non-prosecution.