The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a first appeal for want of prosecution, with no appearance from either party, reaffirming existing procedure; no new substantive law or binding precedent was established. The decision serves as a procedural clarification, not as a case with substantial precedential value.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/16/2023 of MEENA KHOLIYA Vs PUSHKAR ISNGH KHOLIYA |
| CNR | UKHC010010892023 |
| Date of Registration | 16-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED IN DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Precedent Value | Procedural order; no substantive precedential value |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Appeals) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None (procedural dismissal without merits) |
| Persuasive For | None |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Dismissal was solely for want of prosecution, with no party present at the hearing—even after the matter was taken up in the revised call.
- No substantive legal issues, ratio, or precedent created; this is a standard procedural disposal.
- Does not affect the merits of the original appeal or establish a new standard for civil appeal dismissals.
- Lawyers should be vigilant about appearance in Court to avoid dismissal for default.
- No legal reasoning or findings on underlying issues—purely a default order.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court took up the first appeal (FA/16/2023) in the revised call; however, no one appeared for either party.
- In the absence of representation, the bench dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
- No legal questions were addressed and no substantive findings were made.
- The order is administrative/procedural in nature, not a reasoned judgment on law or facts.
Arguments by the Parties
None recorded, as neither party appeared before the Court on the date of decision.
Factual Background
- The matter involved First Appeal No. 16 of 2023 filed by Meena Kholiya versus Pushkar Isngh Kholiya.
- On the date fixed for hearing (28.10.2025), despite repeated calls and a revised list, neither appellant nor respondent appeared.
- The Court consequently dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
- No facts or merits of the underlying dispute were addressed in the order.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the order.
- The dismissal was made strictly on procedural grounds due to non-appearance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; both judges concurred in dismissing the appeal for default.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were made; the Court followed standard procedure for dismissal in default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Standard practice on dismissal for want of prosecution was followed; no breaking or new precedent.