Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

LAL SAHAIversusDHIRI SINGH

Decided

Holding

The second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The appellant, Lal Sahai, filed a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court against the order of the lower court. The court issued notices on 13 February 2026 directing the appellant to engage counsel, but no Vakalatnama or any representation was filed. The court presumed the notices were duly served as they were sent by registered post. Since the appellant failed to comply and no steps were taken to prosecute the appeal, the court held the appeal to be abandoned. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

  • Whether the appellant’s failure to engage counsel and file a Vakalatnama amounts to abandonment of the appeal
  • Whether dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate in the absence of any representation

Subjects

  • second appeal
  • want of prosecution
  • counsel representation
  • Vakalatnama
  • procedural default
  • High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                       SECOND APPEAL No. - 2863 of 1982

                                    Lal Sahai
                                                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                                                     Versus

                                    Dhiri Singh
                                                                                            .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Appellant(s)           :   O.P. Singh, Om Prakash Singh
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   S.C. Verma

                                    Court No. - 34
                                    (Sl. No. 18)
                                                     HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

                                    1. In terms of the order dated 13.2.2026, notices were issued to the
                                    sole appellant to engage another counsel. As per the office report,
                                    neither undelivered cover nor any Vakalatnama has been filed by any
                                    counsel on behalf of the appellant.

                                    2. In such view of the matter, since the notices were issued through
                                    registered post, it is presumed that notices were duly served upon the
                                    appellant. Otherwise also, the instant appeal is pending since long.No
                                    further steps have been taken by the appellant to pursue the instant
                                    second appeal.

                                    3. In such view of the matter, the instant second appeal is dismissed for
                                    the want of prosecution.



                                                                                    (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    n.u.




Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.