A single judge of the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that where counsel is unable to obtain instructions or ensure the petitioner’s presence, and reasonable opportunity has been given, the Court has no alternative but to dismiss the petition. This order upholds existing procedural precedent regarding the duties of counsel and litigants in writ proceedings, with binding value for future cases concerning dismissal for default within the Karnataka High Court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/48053/2019 of SRI. THIMMAIAH Vs CHANNAMMA |
| CNR | KAHC010304942019 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2019 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2024 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | R DEVDAS, J. |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka |
| Bench | Single Judge (R DEVDAS) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition can be dismissed when petitioner or her counsel does not appear or provide instructions? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where the petitioner’s counsel repeatedly discloses inability to continue due to lack of instructions and the petitioner fails to appear despite opportunity, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the writ petition. The duty lies with both litigant and counsel to diligently prosecute proceedings. When adequate opportunity has been given and no representation is made, the Court may dismiss for default. This upholds procedural efficiency and deters dilatory tactics. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner’s counsel, after sending notice of withdrawal to the petitioner, expressed inability to continue. The Court granted opportunity for either the petitioner to appear or make alternate arrangements. No such steps were taken. The Court, after repeated adjournments and no compliance, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches of the High Court of Karnataka on issues of dismissal for default of appearance. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and writ benches considering similar facts or procedural lapses by parties/counsel. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that in writ proceedings, if neither the petitioner nor counsel appear or provide adequate instructions despite being given opportunity, dismissal for default is the only alternative.
- Counsel wishing to withdraw must inform both the petitioner and the Court, but the primary responsibility to prosecute remains with the litigant.
- Lawyers should ensure diligent follow-up with clients and the Court to avoid dismissal for want of prosecution.
- Dismissal in such circumstances is not a technicality but based on principles of court management and procedural fairness.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel, having notified the petitioner, expressed repeated inability to continue without instructions.
- Previous directions were given that either the petitioner should personally appear or make alternative representation, but this was not complied with.
- The Court found that after giving reasonable opportunity and several directions, it could not keep the writ petition pending indefinitely.
- Dismissal for default was justified to ensure judicial efficiency and to discourage non-prosecution.
- The order upholds the established duty of parties and their counsel to pursue litigation diligently.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Counsel stated he had sent notice to the petitioner expressing inability to continue in the matter.
- Sought permission to retire from representing the petitioner.
Respondent
No submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The writ petition challenged an order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the 31st Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, related to prosecution of a civil suit on merits. During proceedings, petitioner’s counsel notified the Court and the petitioner of his withdrawal from the matter due to lack of instructions. The Court directed that the petitioner must either appear or make alternative arrangements, but neither was done. After these repeated directions went unheeded, the Court dismissed the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- The Court did not interpret any statutory provision expansively, but applied established procedural norms under civil and writ proceedings regarding default of appearance and prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the order was by a single judge.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing procedural law on dismissal for default and litigant/counsel duties in writ proceedings.