The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that when an appellant does not appear or provide instructions to counsel even after service of notice and special personal call, the court is justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. This order upholds existing procedural law and serves as binding authority for future cases involving dismissal for non-prosecution in civil appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/158/2019 of RAJESH KUMAR Vs ANITA VERMA |
| CNR | CGHC010108712019 |
| Date of Registration | 29-03-2019 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | NON PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single (Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Civil appellate procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court stated that where an appellant fails to appear or instruct counsel despite adequate notice and opportunity (including a special personal call fixed by the court), the only recourse left is dismissal for non-prosecution. This reaffirms the court’s discretionary power to dismiss an appeal when the appellant shows lack of interest, ensuring procedural discipline and preventing undue delay in administration of justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant’s counsel reported having no instruction and a fixed date for the appellant’s personal appearance was issued and duly served. Despite this, there was no representation or instruction from the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, especially regarding dismissals for non-prosecution in similar factual situations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reiterated that mere service of notice and failure to appear or provide instructions is sufficient ground for dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Appellants and their counsel must remain vigilant about court communications and appear or instruct counsel timely to avoid adverse orders.
- Lawyers should ensure they have clear, continued instructions from clients during pendency of appeal to protect against procedural dismissal.
- This case is a clear reminder to maintain procedural discipline in appellate practice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment records that counsel for appellant expressly stated having no instruction, and a specific date for the appellant’s personal appearance was fixed and served.
- Upon failure of the appellant to respond or appear despite such personal notice, the court found no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
- The court’s reasoning is grounded in procedural fairness and the need to prevent clogging of judicial dockets by inactive appellants.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Counsel informed the court that they had no instruction from the appellant.
- No further representation or argument was advanced due to lack of instruction.
Respondents:
- No submissions from respondents are recorded in the text.
Factual Background
The appellant filed a civil appeal in the High Court. At a later stage, the appellant’s counsel reported having no instruction from the appellant. The court issued a special personal call to the appellant for appearance, which was duly served. Despite this, there was no further representation or instruction from the appellant, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not specify particular statutory provisions but applies general procedural principles relating to dismissal for non-prosecution in appellate proceedings, consistent with civil procedure rules and inherent powers of the High Court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established procedural law regarding dismissal for non-prosecution.