Repeated non-appearance by applicants warranted dismissal of the miscellaneous case for want of prosecution.

The applicants, Janardan and Tanaram, instituted MCC No. 756 of 2023 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

On the previous date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicants. On 2 September 2026, despite repeated calls, neither the applicants appeared in person nor were they represented by counsel. Counsel appeared for respondent No. 2, but the applicants remained unrepresented.

Whether the MCC should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the applicants failed to appear personally or through counsel on successive hearings despite repeated calls?

Whether any pending interlocutory application should remain pending after dismissal of the main MCC?

The Court applied the procedural principle that a proceeding may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the party initiating it repeatedly fails to appear or take necessary steps to prosecute the matter.

The order does not cite any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent; it rests on the Court’s procedural authority to prevent a matter from remaining pending when the concerned party is absent and fails to prosecute it.

The applicants had already failed to appear on the previous hearing date and again remained absent despite repeated calls on the date of the order. Since they were neither personally present nor represented by counsel, the Court found that the proceeding was not being actively prosecuted.

In those circumstances, the Court held that it had no other option but to dismiss the MCC for want of prosecution. As the main proceeding was dismissed, any pending interlocutory application also required consequential disposal.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.