High Court dismisses petition after 11-year delay and counsel’s refusal to argue, upholding the importance of timely prosecution under Articles 226/227
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/108486/2014 of NAGESH SUBBARAO MAYYA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA |
| CNR | CNR KAHC020032482014 |
| Date of Registration | 05-09-2014 |
| Decision Date | 28-04-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for non-prosecution |
| Judgment Author | M.G. Uma, J. |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Type of Law | Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution because learned counsel, despite an explicit direction to argue the matter and being granted a final opportunity, failed to address any arguments. The order sheet recorded that no reason justified further adjournment in a matter pending since 2014, with 11 years having elapsed. In the absence of prosecution, the court exercised its power to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. |
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petition, filed in 2014, remained unargued for 11 years.
- The court noted that 11 years had elapsed and that no justification was offered for further adjournment.
- Despite a specific directive and a final hearing date, learned counsel did not address any arguments.
- Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
Petitioners challenged three revenue orders dated 05-12-2008, 03-07-2013 and 26-11-1981 passed by respondents 2 to 4 in WP No.108486/2014 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition remained pending for nearly 11 years without any arguments being advanced. On 15-04-2024, the court refused further adjournment and set a final hearing on 28-04-2025, but learned counsel did not appear to argue.
Citations
- NC:2025:KHC-D:6992
- WP No.108486/2014