The Orissa High Court reaffirmed existing procedural law that repeated absence of the petitioner’s counsel will result in dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution. This decision upholds prevailing judicial practice and confirms binding precedent for trial courts and practitioners in similar procedural default scenarios.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/13214/2018 of AKSHAYA KUMAR BEHERA Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | ODHC010406092018 |
| Date of Registration | 25-07-2018 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed For Default/Non-Prosecution |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Orissa |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Non-prosecution and defaults) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that in the event of repeated absence of petitioner’s counsel despite due notice and listing, the court may dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. The record reflected that counsel for the petitioners was absent when the matter was called, and had also remained absent on a previous date. As a result, the matter was dismissed due to non-prosecution, in line with established procedural principles. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petition was listed for hearing; the petitioner’s counsel was absent on two consecutive occasions (including on 02.09.2025). The respondent’s counsel was present. Due to continued non-appearance, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Orissa jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts for procedural clarity |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Orissa High Court reiterated that persistent non-appearance by the petitioner’s counsel, even after previous absence is formally recorded, warrants dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Lawyers should ensure presence or appropriate representation when matters are listed, or risk dismissal regardless of merits.
- The judgment demonstrates that the Court need not grant repeated adjournments in case of unexplained and continued absence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that petitioner’s counsel was absent on the day the matter was listed and had also been absent on the previous occasion.
- The presence of counsel for the opposite parties was recorded.
- Given the persistent non-appearance without explanation from the petitioners’ side, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution.
- This order is in consonance with established judicial procedure, which allows dismissal when the petitioner or their counsel does not appear, showing lack of diligence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No appearance by petitioner or their counsel; no arguments recorded.
Respondent
- Learned counsel for the opposite parties was present; no recorded submissions.
Factual Background
The writ petition was instituted in 2018. At multiple listings, including on 02.09.2025 and on the present date (31.10.2025), counsel for the petitioner was absent. The respondent’s counsel attended both times. Due to continued absence of the petitioners’ counsel and lack of prosecution, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment was issued under the Court’s inherent procedural power to dismiss matters for default or non-prosecution.
- No specific statutes or constitutional provisions were discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions; single-judge order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations recorded in the order; reaffirmed routine procedure for dismissal due to non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision aligns with standard practice for dismissal for default/non-prosecution.