The court held that an appeal may be dismissed as infructuous when circumstances render the matter academic. The judgment upholds existing judicial practice regarding the disposal of infructuous appeals and serves as binding authority for future proceedings on similar procedural grounds.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAT/1241/2023 of PRITAM MONDAL Vs MILAN GOUR AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0320262023 |
| Date of Registration | 04-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, HON’BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | HON’BLE JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, HON’BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority regarding dismissal of infructuous appeals |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where parties submit that nothing survives for adjudication and the appeal has become infructuous, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal as such. The judges acted on the appellant’s submission that the matter no longer requires determination. This approach furthers judicial economy and ensures the court does not expend resources on academic questions. The judgment affirms the procedural principle of dismissing an appeal as infructuous upon statements from counsel. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter had become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, as well as for future reference in similar procedural situations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment confirms that when an appellant submits that the issue is no longer live or actionable, the court can—and should—dismiss the appeal as infructuous.
- Lawyers should assess the ongoing relevance of their appeals and proactively inform the court if a case has become academic to expedite judicial processes.
- Dismissal as infructuous preserves judicial time and resources when parties are agreed that no live dispute remains.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court relied on the submission of the appellant’s counsel that the appeal had become infructuous.
- Upon being satisfied that there was no longer any live issue to be determined, the court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
- The decision upholds the established principle that courts need not adjudicate on matters rendered academic or non-justiciable by supervening events, especially upon parties’ acknowledgment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter has become infructuous.
No arguments recorded from the Respondent side in the judgment.
Factual Background
The appeal was before the Calcutta High Court in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. During the course of the proceedings, learned counsel for the appellant informed the court that the matter had become infructuous, indicating there was no live issue requiring adjudication. There is no additional factual detail recorded in the judgment.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or analyzed in the judgment as the disposal was procedural in nature, based solely on the declaration of infructuousness by the appellant’s counsel.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates the established procedural practice of dismissing appeals as infructuous upon counsel’s submission, conserving judicial resources.
- No new procedural guidelines or novel approaches were introduced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing law and procedural practice regarding the disposal of infructuous matters.