Where an appeal is dismissed solely for non-prosecution with no representation for the appellant, the High Court’s order is procedural and not a pronouncement on the merits. Such orders are limited in precedential value and do not impact the substantive law underlying the appeal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/3380/2024 of LACHHMAN SINGH Vs SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER AND ORS. |
| CNR | PHHC011684072023 |
| Date of Registration | 21-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI |
| Precedent Value | Limited (procedural dismissal; not a decision on merits) |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Appellate Practice |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as there was no representation from the appellant on several occasions, specifically after a prior express warning that non-appearance would result in dismissal in default. No adjudication on the merits of the case was made. The order is procedural and simply enforces court discipline regarding prosecution of appeals. Such dismissal does not constitute a precedent on substantive law issues involved in the original appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant failed to appear or arrange representation on the scheduled dates, despite being admonished on a prior date that absence would lead to dismissal of the appeal. As the appellant again failed to appear, the court presumed the lack of interest in pursuing the appeal and dismissed it for non-prosecution, disposing of pending civil miscellaneous applications as well. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Parties to the proceedings; no binding value on substantive law for lower courts. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive for other cases on substantive legal points; value only for procedural precedent regarding dismissal for non-prosecution. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appellate courts may dismiss appeals for non-prosecution if parties repeatedly fail to appear, especially after specific warnings.
- Such dismissals are procedural and not decisions on merit; no substantive legal issues are adjudicated.
- Lawyers should be vigilant regarding appearance and prosecution of appeals to avoid dismissal in default.
- If an appeal is dismissed for default, the correct recourse is restoration under relevant procedural rules, not a substantive review.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first recorded the previous adjournment order, in which the appellate bench stated that failure to appear on the next date would result in dismissal for non-prosecution.
- The record shows persistent non-appearance by the appellant or their counsel, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
- As no representations were forthcoming even after express warning, the court exercised its procedural discretion to dismiss the appeal for default.
- The order only disposes of the appeal due to non-prosecution, without entering into the merits of the dispute.
- All pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed as a consequence of the dismissal.
Factual Background
The matter came before the High Court by way of an intra-court appeal. The appellant repeatedly failed to secure representation, even after being cautioned through an express judicial order that absence on the next date would invite dismissal for non-prosecution. Upon no appearance from the appellant or their counsel, the court dismissed the appeal for default, finding a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not interpret or analyze any statutory provision, as the dismissal was based purely on procedural grounds for non-prosecution and default of appearance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None; both judges concurred in the brief order for dismissal in default.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations introduced; the court followed standard practice of dismissal for repeated non-appearance after explicit warning.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Standard procedural law regarding dismissal for default affirmed.