The High Court authoritatively affirms that persistent absence and lack of diligence by the appellant, despite adequate notice, entitles the court to dismiss a second appeal for non-prosecution. This judgment upholds existing practice, provides binding authority within its jurisdiction, and clarifies procedural expectations for litigants and lawyers in civil appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/547/2017 of KULDEEP SINGH Vs JAGPAL SINGH & ORS CNR PHHC011308972017 |
| Date of Registration | 30-01-2017 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within jurisdiction for dismissal due to non-prosecution in second appeals |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether consistent absence of an appellant, even after due notice, justifies dismissal of a second appeal for non-prosecution? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that repeated non-appearance and lack of diligence by the appellant, coupled with adequate opportunities afforded and proper notice provided, demonstrate a casual and careless approach warranting dismissal for non-prosecution. Valuable court time was expended to facilitate such opportunities, and the appellant’s lack of seriousness left the court with no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant was unrepresented despite notice being issued and intimation to counsel through email and telephonically. On the last date of hearing, neither the appellant nor counsel appeared, demonstrating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. This pattern of non-appearance and indifference prompted the dismissal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar circumstances regarding dismissal for non-prosecution |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reinforces and documents the court’s intolerance of casual or indifferent conduct by appellants in civil appeals.
- Affirms that repeated absence by a litigant and counsel, after being duly notified, will result in dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Lawyers must ensure consistent follow-up and prompt attendance throughout appellate proceedings or risk losing the appeal by default.
- The decision highlights that valuable judicial time will not be wasted due to litigant inaction; courts may proceed to dismiss summarily.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the record and found the appellant and his counsel repeatedly absent despite proper notice via email and telephone.
- The court noted the appellant had been given ample opportunities and such conduct indicated a wholly casual attitude, showing little interest in pursuing the litigation.
- It was observed that significant public and judicial time had already been spent accommodating the appellant.
- In these circumstances, the High Court held it was left with no alternative, and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, as further indulgence was unwarranted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No appearance made at the hearing.
- No arguments recorded due to absence of counsel or party.
Respondent:
- Representation by counsel noted.
Factual Background
The appeal stemmed from a judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which had reversed a prior trial court decision. The appellant pursued a second appeal, but failed to appear at multiple hearings—including after proper notice via email and telephone to counsel. On the final scheduled date, neither the appellant nor his legal representatives appeared, prompting dismissal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The court exercised its inherent powers to dismiss proceedings for non-prosecution where the appellant showed repeated lack of interest.
- No specific statutory section or provision is interpreted or expounded in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directives were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms established practice regarding non-prosecution and appellant default.
Citations
No SCC / AIR / MANU / neutral citation or paragraph references provided in the judgment transcript.