Legal proceedings may be dismissed for want of prosecution when a party repeatedly fails to argue the matter despite multiple opportunities and explicit court warnings against further adjournments, especially in long-pending 'old matters'.

COMMON ORDER:

Docket order shows that on 17.02.2025, the following order was passed:

“At the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s), list these matters on 10.03.2025.”

2. Thereafter on 10.03.2025, the following order was passed:

“On the request made on behalf of the appellant counsel, list the matter after four (04) weeks.”

3. On 16.04.2025, we passed the following order:

“Sri Md.Abdul Basith, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.N.Prashnath and Sri A.Prabhakara Sarma, learned counsels appear for the respondents through virtual mode.

2. There is no representation for the appellant as also in the connected S.A.No.807 of 2000 and in W.P.No.13135 of 2003

3. On 10.03.2025, on the request made on behalf of the appellant’s counsel, the matter was directed to list after four weeks.

4. Today, there is no such representation, when the matter was called.

5. The matters pertain to the years 2000, 2001 and 2003 and are listed ‘for final hearing’. However, granting last opportunity to appear and argue the matter.

6. List after two weeks.

7. No further adjournment shall be requested.”

4. The aforesaid orders were passed when either there was no representation for the appellant(s) or at the request made on behalf of appellant(s). The order dated 16.04.2025 clearly provided that no further adjournment shall be requested. Inspite thereof at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant(s), we provided one more opportunity on 20.01.2026 and directed the matter to be listed after two (02) weeks.

5. The order dated 20.01.2026 reads as under:

“Ms.A.Chandravathi, learned counsel for the appellant/s prays for time.

2. List the matter after two (02) weeks.”

6. Today, request has been made again on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) .

7. We do not find any sufficient ground for adjournment.

8. The matters pertain to the years 2000, 2001 & 2003 and are listed under the caption “old matters”. The cause-list mentions that the old matters may not be adjourned.

9. We asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellants’ counsel to argue the matters. He failed to argue.

10. A.S.No.2546 of 2001, S.A.No.807 of 2000 and W.P.No.13135 of 2003 are dismissed for “want of prosecution”.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.