Delhi HC Rejects Appeal As Appellant Went Missing

The Delhi High Court recently rejected an appeal filed against judgement of the Trial Court because the appellant went missing even before the pronouncement of Trial Court judgment.

Bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar heard an appeal wherein the impugned order came to be passed by the Additional District Judge in Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables (P) Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma). The judgment of the ADJ was in favour of Mother Dairy and against Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

The counsel for the appellant (Rakesh Kumar Sharma) relied upon a vakalathnama wherein Sharma had signed and authorised his counsel to represent him both in the Trial Court as well as in the Appellate Court.

Apart from the vakalathnama, the counsel for the appellant said that Rakesh Kumar Sharma's sister had also given her consent to the filing of the instant appeal against the Trial Court judgment.

The Court said that the intricate exercise of psychoanalysis of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, undertaken in absentia (as Rakesh Kumar Sharma went missing even before the impugned judgment was passed), cannot authorise the filing of the instant appeal on behalf of a person who had never even seen the impugned order, much less taken a decision to file an appeal against it, or instructed its filing.

The Court observed that such a practice, if allowed, could lead to catastrophic consequences.

The Court noted that, "On the pretext that the unsuccessful party before the Court below is not available, or traceable, any third party could file an appeal, on behalf of the missing unsuccessful party, behind his back and without his knowledge, and, needless to say, without any authorisation from him whatsoever. The rights of the unsuccessful party can, thereby, be seriously prejudiced, and may, in a given case, even lead to irreparable harm."

The appeal came to be dismissed by the High Court.