Dismissal for non-prosecution after prolonged wait for trial records violates natural justice without a further opportunity.

The petitioners challenged the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal’s order dated 15 February 2020 dismissing R.A. No. 24/2015 for non-prosecution.

Their counsel submitted that the non-appearance was due to unavoidable circumstances and was neither intentional nor deliberate.

The appellate court’s order sheet showed that the lower court records had been awaited for a considerable period; after their receipt, the appeal was listed twice before dismissal.

The High Court dispensed with notice to the respondents.

Whether dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, after the lower court records had been awaited for a substantial period, warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the appeal should be restored, and if so, on what terms.

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.

It reasoned that where lower court records have been awaited for a substantial period, an appellant should be afforded a further opportunity before the appeal is dismissed; restoration may be appropriate where it enables complete adjudication and causes no prejudice to the other parties.

No statute or precedent was cited in the order.

The Court noted that the appellate court had awaited the lower court records for more than two to three years, but dismissed the appeal after it was listed only twice following receipt of those records.

In those circumstances, the Court held that another opportunity ought to have been granted and that dismissal without it violated the principles of natural justice.

It also found that restoration would not prejudice the respondents and would facilitate adjudication of the dispute.

However, it observed that due diligence by the appellants could have avoided the dismissal.