A second appeal was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution without adjudicating upon the merits. This maintains the status of binding authority only for similar procedural scenarios, without creating new law or overruling existing jurisprudence.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2225/2001 of ANANT RAM Vs SAGLI RAM |
| CNR | PHHC010524072001 |
| Date of Registration | 06-07-2001 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value on substantive law; operates as precedent only on procedural dismissal |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellants failed to appear on three consecutive dates, indicating disinterest in pursuing the second appeal, leading to its dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana, for cases involving dismissals for want of prosecution |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, for similar procedural dismissals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that sustained absence of appellant’s representation empowers the court to dismiss second appeals for want of prosecution.
- No findings on merits are recorded in judgments of dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Subordinate courts may treat such dismissals as final for the procedural outcome, not for legal principles on substantive law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted repeated absence of appellants or their representatives across multiple consecutive hearings.
- It observed that non-appearance signified lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
- Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, in accordance with established procedural law.
- No substantive or legal question was addressed or adjudicated upon, and all pending applications were disposed of due to the dismissal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- No arguments recorded; appellants were absent on the date of hearing and prior two consecutive dates.
Respondent:
- Represented by Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate.
- No formal submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The matter concerned a second appeal (RSA-2225-2001) filed in the High Court. Over at least three consecutive hearings, the appellants or their counsel failed to appear before the Court. Observing sustained non-appearance, the Court inferred the appellants’ lack of intent to pursue the matter further and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment involved application of procedural law relating to the power of appellate courts to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution.
- No specific statutory section was discussed or interpreted in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment was delivered by a single judge; no dissenting or concurring opinion recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment follows standard procedure for dismissal for want of prosecution.
- No new procedural guidelines or innovations introduced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Procedure for dismissal for non-prosecution reaffirmed.