Second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to repeated non-appearance by appellants.

The appellants filed the second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 4 August 2005 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh, in Civil Appeal No. 2A/04.

During the second round of hearing before the High Court, none of the appellants appeared and no representation was made on their behalf.

The State was represented by its panel lawyer.

Whether the second appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellants failed to appear or make any representation despite a second opportunity of hearing?

Whether any further order could be passed in the second appeal in the absence of the appellants’ appearance or representation?

The Court applied the procedural principle that a civil appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant, despite opportunity, fails to appear or take steps to prosecute the matter.

The Court relied on its procedural discretion to decline further consideration of an appeal in the absence of the party seeking relief; no specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the order.

The second appeal was pending against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. However, during the second round of hearing, the appellants neither appeared nor arranged representation.

Since the appellants had not taken the necessary steps to prosecute the appeal and there was no submission on their behalf requiring adjudication, the Court held that it had no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court therefore did not examine the merits of the underlying dispute or formulate any substantial question of law.

No decision was rendered on the merits of the appeal.