1. Appeal and miscellaneous petitions — failure to pay process fee, file copies, and substitute legal representatives of a deceased appellant. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1077
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B N Kirpal, K Ramaswamy
BAWA NIHAL SINGH, APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, FARIDKOT, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 8392 of 1983 [From the Judgment and Order dated 11-9-1979 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1975], decided on November 1, 1995.
Important Points
Diligent prosecution and compliance with office objections are essential to avoid dismissal of the appeal.
Subject
Civil Law - Dismissal for Non-Diligent Prosecution
Act Referred
Headnote
Diligence - Prosecution - Dismissal of Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The matter was not being prosecuted diligently, and multiple notices and directions were issued to the appellant's counsel, but no action was taken. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to non-compliance with the office objections.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the matter was not being prosecuted diligently, and as a result, the applications were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as a whole.
Issues: Non-diligent prosecution, non-compliance with office objections
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to prosecute the matter diligently and non-compliance with office objections led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as having abated as a whole, with no costs imposed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
G.K.BANSAL, J.D.JAIN, K.KOCHAR, Ranbir Yadav
G.K.BANSAL, J.D.JAIN, K.KOCHAR, Ranbir Yadav
Table of Contents
2. Lack of diligent prosecution — failure to comply with court directions regarding process fees and substitution of legal representatives. (Para 1 )
3. Non-compliance with court-ordered deadlines for removing office objections results in the automatic dismissal of the applications. (Para 1 )
4. Miscellaneous petitions dismissed by self-operation of order — appeal dismissed as abated. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. What is the effect of failing to comply with a court order to remove office objections within a specified deadline?
If the court specifies that applications shall stand dismissed in default of compliance within a set period, the applications are dismissed by self-operation of that order upon the expiry of the deadline. (Para 1 )
6. Under what circumstances may an appeal be dismissed as abated as a whole?
An appeal may be dismissed as abated as a whole when the appellant fails to diligently prosecute the matter, specifically by failing to bring the legal representatives of a deceased party on record. (Para 1 , 2 )
ORDER
1. It is very unfortunate that the matter is not being prosecuted diligently. It is seen from the office report dated 25-10-1994 that after issue of notice by this Court on 3-5-1993, letters were issued to the counsel for the appellant on 15-5-1993, 13-6-1994, 15-7-1994 and 6-8-1994 with a default clause to pay the requisite deficit process fee and also to file copies of the applications. However, no action was taken. Again when the matter was listed on 3-5-1993, it was reported that one of the appellants died and his legal representatives were directed to be brought on record, notice to be taken and process fee along with miscellaneous petition was required to be deposited. The Registry of this Court has given notice to the counsel for payment of the requisite process fee along with the copies of the petitions but that was also not done. When the matter was again posted before the Court on 2-1-1995 for further orders, this Court ordered : "Four weeks for complying with the office objections. In default, the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 4315-17 of 1987 shall stand dismissed". Therefore, the applications by self-operation of the said order stand dismissed.
2. Consequently, the appeal also requires to be dismissed as having abated as a whole. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
