Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M.G. Uma, dismissed a writ petition filed by a cooperative bank for non-prosecution, observing that despite repeated opportunities and directions, the petitioner had failed to take necessary procedural steps for issuance of notice to unserved respondents.
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated persistent negligence in pursuing the matter and refused to grant further adjournment.
Justice Uma stated:
“In spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioner has not taken steps for issuance of notice to unserved respondents. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter further. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default, i.e., for non-prosecution.”
Facts
The petitioner, a cooperative bank registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order dated 17 February 2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Appeals No. 57/2010 and 157/2010.
The KAT’s order, which was adverse to the bank, had affirmed certain decisions rendered by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Cooperative Societies Rules. The bank contended that the KAT’s decision was illegal and unjust, warranting interference by the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Upon filing, the petition was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents, including private individuals and members associated with the cooperative body. However, several respondents — specifically Respondent Nos. 5(a–d), 8, and 10 — remained unserved despite repeated directions from the Court to complete procedural formalities such as payment of process fee and furnishing of correct addresses.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to take steps for service of notice to respondents amounts to non-prosecution?
- Whether the High Court, under Articles 226 and 227, is justified in dismissing the petition for default in such circumstances?
- Whether repeated indulgence to a negligent litigant would amount to abuse of judicial process?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel sought time to take steps for issuance of notice to the remaining unserved respondents. It was submitted that due to procedural difficulties and logistical reasons, service of notice could not be completed earlier.
The petitioner urged the Court to grant one final opportunity to rectify the defect and proceed with the matter on merits, arguing that dismissal for non-prosecution would cause irreparable loss since the KAT order would otherwise attain finality.
It was also contended that the petition raised substantial questions of law concerning the powers of the Appellate Tribunal under the Cooperative Societies Act, and therefore, a liberal approach should be adopted to allow the matter to be heard on merits.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, represented through the Additional Government Advocate and private counsel, opposed any further adjournment, submitting that the petitioner had repeatedly defaulted despite multiple directions from the Court.
It was pointed out that the petition had been pending since 2019, and even after issuance of emergent notice on 6 November 2023, no steps had been taken for almost a year. The respondents submitted that the petitioner’s conduct was dilatory and negligent, reflecting an abuse of process.
Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition for default, contending that the Court’s indulgence cannot be infinite when a litigant fails to comply with procedural directions despite repeated warnings.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of dismissal for non-prosecution under the High Court Rules and the inherent powers of the Court. Justice Uma reiterated that though the High Court exercises broad jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, such powers must be exercised judicially and not indulgently, especially when a litigant displays apathy in compliance.
The Court relied on the principle that procedure is the handmaid of justice, but when a party repeatedly defaults despite warnings, the Court must uphold procedural discipline to prevent clogging of the judicial docket.
The Court emphasized that even in writ jurisdiction, petitioners must demonstrate diligence in prosecuting their cases. Failure to do so justifies dismissal under the principle that justice aids the vigilant, not the indolent (vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt).
Precedent Analysis
- State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412 — The Supreme Court underscored that procedural compliance is essential for the orderly conduct of litigation, and repeated indulgence may result in abuse of judicial process.
- Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 — Reiterated that procedural timelines are not mere formalities but tools to ensure judicial efficiency.
- K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 — Held that the Court possesses inherent powers to prevent abuse of process by negligent litigants.
These precedents collectively supported the Court’s view that dismissal for default is justified when a party fails to act diligently despite repeated opportunities.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Uma noted that the record showed repeated indulgence extended to the petitioner. The order sheet dated 24 July 2025 explicitly granted a week’s time as a final opportunity to pay the process fee and serve notice to unserved respondents, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
However, even after the lapse of several months, no steps were taken, and no explanation was offered for the continued inaction. The Court found that such conduct demonstrated a complete lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
The judge concluded that the petitioner’s plea for further time was unjustified, and the Court could not continue to “keep the matter alive indefinitely.” The writ petition was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution, as the petitioner had effectively abandoned the case through prolonged inaction and procedural negligence.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition for default, holding that repeated failure to comply with court directions constitutes non-prosecution. Justice Uma reaffirmed that the court’s indulgence is not limitless and procedural compliance is essential for the fair administration of justice.
“In spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioner has not taken steps for issuance of notice to unserved respondents. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter further. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default, i.e., for non-prosecution.”
Implications
This order underscores the principle that litigants must diligently prosecute their cases and comply with court directions. It serves as a cautionary precedent against habitual adjournments and procedural complacency.
Key takeaways:
- The High Court will not entertain indefinite delays in procedural compliance.
- Dismissal for non-prosecution is a valid judicial response to persistent negligence.
- Even institutions like cooperative banks are not exempt from procedural discipline.
The decision thus reinforces judicial efficiency and the importance of vigilant pursuit of remedies in writ proceedings.
Judgments Referred
- State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412 — Highlighted the necessity of procedural compliance.
- Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 — Stressed on procedural discipline to maintain judicial efficiency.
- K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 — Empowered courts to prevent abuse of process by negligent litigants.
FAQs
Q1. Can the High Court dismiss a writ petition for non-prosecution?
Yes. When the petitioner repeatedly fails to comply with procedural directions, the Court may dismiss the petition for non-prosecution to prevent abuse of process.
Q2. What happens after a writ petition is dismissed for default?
The petitioner may move a restoration application showing sufficient cause for non-compliance. However, restoration is discretionary and depends on bona fide reasons.
Q3. Why is procedural diligence important in writ jurisdiction?
Though writ jurisdiction is equitable, it still demands adherence to procedure. Courts balance fairness with efficiency, ensuring justice for the vigilant, not for those who delay.
