Where appellants do not appear or comply with cost orders, the High Court may dismiss the second appeal for non-prosecution—reaffirming existing procedural law. Establishes binding precedent for the dismissal of non-diligently prosecuted appeals in all matters before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/170/2024 of ANIL MEHTA AND OTHERS Vs SAKILA DEVI CNR PHHC011451382023 |
| Date of Registration | 16-01-2024 |
| 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 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural civil law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal, pending since 2024, was repeatedly adjourned at the request of the appellants’ counsel. On the current date, despite being called twice and costs being outstanding, no one appeared for the appellants, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution when appellants or their counsel fail to appear and do not comply with court directions.
- Emphasizes the court’s lack of tolerance for indifference or delay in prosecuting appeals, especially where costs have previously been imposed and ignored.
- Highlights the importance of diligent representation and compliance with previous court orders to avoid summary dismissal of appeals.
- Lawyers must ensure attendance and compliance with cost orders to avoid fatal consequences for their clients.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the repeated adjournments granted at the request of the appellants’ counsel and recorded that, on the present date, the matter was called twice but no one appeared for the appellants.
- Costs imposed via previous order dated 28.01.2025 remained unpaid, further suggesting disinterest.
- The court reasoned that there was no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, based on the appellants’ consistent absence and non-compliance with earlier orders.
- Such disposals serve the interest of judicial economy and underscore the principle that litigation must be prosecuted with diligence.
Factual Background
The appeal had been pending since 2024 and was repeatedly adjourned on the appellants’ counsel’s request. Despite earlier imposition of costs, the appellants failed to deposit the same and did not appear on the present date when the matter was called twice. The court thus inferred disinterest in pursuing the appeal and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment implements established procedural principles concerning non-prosecution in civil appellate proceedings. It underscores the High Court’s inherent procedural authority to dismiss cases when parties repeatedly default in appearance or neglect compliance with court orders.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and reaffirms settled principles regarding dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution.