When a writ petition is dismissed solely due to the petitioner’s failure to prosecute, no new legal principle is created or clarified, and such dismissal does not carry precedential value on the substantive issues originally raised. The decision does not overrule or affirm any existing precedent and is limited to the procedural fact of non-prosecution.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/21791/2025 of SURMUKH SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011193652025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | None on substantive questions; procedural precedent for dismissal for non-prosecution |
| Type of Law | Procedural |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to appear despite previous opportunities. Notice could not be issued for non-deposit of process fee. The Court inferred lack of interest on part of the petitioner and dismissed the case for non-prosecution. No substantive legal issue was adjudicated or discussed in the judgment. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner failed to appear on two previous occasions and did not comply with the order regarding deposit of process fee. The continued absence indicated disinterest in pursuing the case, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on substantive law; procedural only for similar facts regarding non-prosecution |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive on substantive questions; limited to procedural matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterated its willingness to dismiss petitions for non-prosecution if petitioners repeatedly default on appearances or procedural requirements.
- Dismissals for non-prosecution do not address or decide the merits of the original case.
- Lawyers should ensure compliance with all procedural directions and attend scheduled hearings to avoid procedural dismissal.
- No precedential value for future cases on points of law raised in the original petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The sole basis for dismissal was the petitioner’s failure to appear and comply with the court’s directions regarding process fee, even after opportunities were provided.
- The Court found sufficient cause to infer disinterest from the petitioner’s repeated absence.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
- No discussion or reasoning on any substantive legal or constitutional issue took place.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No appearance; no arguments presented.
Respondent (State of Haryana):
- Appeared through DAG Haryana, but no substantive arguments recorded due to petitioner’s absence.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Surmukh Singh, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On multiple previous occasions, the petitioner did not appear, nor was the process fee deposited as ordered by the Court. On the date of decision, again, no one appeared for the petitioner. This led the Court to infer non-interest in prosecuting the matter and dismiss the case for non-prosecution. No substantive issues were considered or decided.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted in the judgment; the order is confined to procedural default and the consequence thereof.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion was issued; the judgment was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural principles or innovations were introduced; the order follows settled practice regarding cases not prosecuted by the petitioners.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Standard dismissal procedure for non-prosecution applied; no new or conflicting precedent established.