Consistent non-appearance of the petitioner, even after admission and service of notice, entitles the High Court to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. Judgment affirms established procedure on dismissal for default in the Bombay High Court, providing binding authority for subordinate courts and future writ matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/243/2013 of TRUPTI DATTARAM KALSHAONKAR Vs PANDURANG H. TORASKAR (SIN. DEC.) THR. LRS. AND 7 ORS., CNR HCBM050004582013 |
| Date of Registration | 06-04-2013 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH S. CHAVAN |
| Court | Bombay High Court at Goa |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Procedural law (Dismissal for non-prosecution) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court is entitled to dismiss a writ petition for non-prosecution where the petitioner fails to appear, despite adequate opportunities and repeated adjournments. Persistent absence of the petitioner, especially after admission and service of notice, demonstrates lack of interest in prosecuting the petition, warranting dismissal for want of prosecution. Such an order is in accordance with the settled procedure and judicial discipline, preventing unnecessary clogging of court dockets. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The writ petition was admitted and rule issued on 08.05.2013. The matter was repeatedly adjourned to enable service of respondents. On several successive dates (19.09.2025, 03.10.2025, 10.10.2025, and 17.10.2025), counsel for petitioner failed to appear, while counsel for respondent No.1 was present. Given the petitioner’s continued absence since 2013, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other benches of High Courts, legal practitioners |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that persistent absence or non-appearance by a petitioner, even after admission of the writ petition, justifies dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Lawyers must ensure vigilant representation and timely appearances post-admission to avoid dismissal for default.
- Demonstrates that the High Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss long-pending cases for want of prosecution, limiting unnecessary pendency.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The writ petition had been admitted and served, but the petitioner continued to be absent on multiple occasioned hearings.
- Court observed the consistent absence of the petitioner since 2013, with no explanation furnished or representation made.
- The judgment applies the established principle that litigation cannot drag indefinitely due to a party’s indifference, and courts have inherent powers to dismiss matters for non-prosecution.
- Such action upholds judicial efficiency and prevents abuse of court process.
- The decision is procedural and relies strictly on the petitioner’s absence rather than the merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- None appeared for the petitioner at any of the relevant hearings.
Respondent:
- Mr. R. Kantak, Advocate, appeared for Respondent No.1 on multiple dates.
- No substantive submissions from respondents are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The writ petition was filed in 2013 and admitted with rule issued on 08.05.2013.
- After notice, the petition was repeatedly adjourned for service of respondents.
- Between September and October 2025, neither the petitioner nor counsel appeared on multiple hearing dates, whereas counsel for the respondent was present.
- In view of persistent non-appearance by the petitioner, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment is based on procedural rules regarding dismissal for non-prosecution. No discussion or interpretation of specific statutory provisions is contained in the judgment text.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing principles regarding dismissal for non-prosecution.