When an applicant in a transfer petition fails to appear, the Punjab and Haryana High Court may dismiss the application for want of prosecution, without examining the merits. This judgment follows existing precedent and affirms routine procedural practice, with binding effect within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | TA/571/2025 of GEETIKA Vs VIKUL BAKSHI |
| CNR | PHHC010642572025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-07-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that in the absence of representation for the applicant, despite the matter being called twice, it is open to dismiss a transfer application for want of prosecution. No determination is made on merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | No one appeared for the applicant when the transfer application was called twice. The Court presumed lack of interest in prosecuting the matter, leading to dismissal for want of prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that if an applicant in a transfer petition fails to appear despite repeated calls, the High Court may dismiss the matter for want of prosecution.
- Highlights the importance of diligent appearance in procedural applications to avoid summary dismissal.
- No decision on the merits will be made if the applicant does not pursue the matter actively.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the applicant was not represented when the case was called twice.
- It inferred a lack of interest on the applicant’s part to pursue the transfer application.
- Based on this non-prosecution, the Court dismissed the application without going into the merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No submissions made as none appeared for the applicant.
Respondent
- No submissions recorded in the absence of petitioner’s appearance.
Factual Background
The transfer application was listed for hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant, even though the matter was called twice. Accordingly, the Court presumed disinterest in the application and dismissed it for want of prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment applies procedural law regarding the consequences of non-prosecution of petitions, but no specific statutory interpretation or discussion is recorded in the order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were provided in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural precedents or innovations were set; the practice of dismissing for non-prosecution was simply affirmed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law and practice on dismissal for non-prosecution is affirmed.