Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal After Repeated Non-Prosecution; Affirms Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC
Case Name: Abhey Ram vs. Miyan Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: RSA-3802-2013
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal after finding no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court. It was held that the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence despite repeated opportunities, resulting in dismissal under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, and thereafter wrongly sought restoration instead of filing a statutory appeal. The Court reiterated that mere pleadings without proof cannot establish a claim and that litigants cannot indefinitely delay proceedings by repeated adjournments or non-appearance.
Summary: The appellant filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and a mandatory injunction relating to a disputed water course passing through agricultural land. The defendants contested the suit by asserting long-standing use of the watercourse by majority shareholders and existence of orders of canal authorities confirming its restoration. Despite multiple opportunities, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence, resulting in dismissal of the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC on the basis that pleadings cannot substitute proof. Instead of filing a statutory appeal against the decree, the plaintiff filed a restoration application, which was rejected as not maintainable. The civil appeal filed thereafter was also dismissed on the reasoning that once a decree exists under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, the only remedy available is a regular appeal, not an application for recall or restoration.
Decision: The High Court held that both courts below had rightly dismissed the suit and subsequent proceedings, as the plaintiff had not produced even a single witness or documentary proof to support his claims. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that adjournments cannot be granted endlessly and that misuse of procedural latitude undermines the administration of justice. Finding no perversity or legal error and no substantial question of law arising under Section 100 CPC, the Court dismissed the second appeal. All pending applications were disposed of.