The Calcutta High Court reiterates that persistent non-appearance by appellants justifies dismissal of a second appeal for default; no adjudication on merits occurs in such cases. This order affirms the established procedural principle and acts as a procedural, not substantive, precedent.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/1381/1965 of SM. BAHARJAN BIBI AND ORS Vs EARJAN ALI MIR AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0002571965 |
| Date of Registration | 14-02-1964 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Procedural; no decision on merits; limited substantive value |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure (appeals process) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | None of the parties appeared on the fourth consecutive call of the appeal; previous order provided a final opportunity to the appellants; appeal was dismissed for default as a result. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal regarding procedural handling of non-appearance in appeals. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar procedural circumstances. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Calcutta High Court affirms that repeated non-appearance will result in dismissal for default, even after a final opportunity.
- Lawyers must exercise diligence in monitoring matters, especially after a “last chance” direction from the court.
- Dismissal is strictly procedural and does not decide the underlying merits of the appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that this was the fourth time none of the parties appeared at the time of call.
- A previous order had explicitly provided a last opportunity to the appellants to argue the appeal.
- Upon failure of appearance even on the next scheduled date, the court proceeded to dismiss the second appeal for default.
- By operation of the dismissal, any interim orders stand vacated.
- The court made no order as to costs.
- No discussion or determination of legal or factual issues on the merits of the case was undertaken.
Arguments by the Parties
No submissions recorded – none appeared for any of the parties at the hearing.
Factual Background
The appeal in question was listed for hearing before the Calcutta High Court. It had come up for hearing on four separate occasions, with none of the parties in attendance each time. By an order dated October 24, 2025, the court had granted a final opportunity to the appellants to present their arguments. On October 31, 2025, no party appeared once more, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for default. Any interim orders previously in force were vacated as a consequence.
Statutory Analysis
The court exercised its power to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance, a power recognized in the Code of Civil Procedure, though the judgment does not cite any particular statutory section or provide interpretation thereof. No statutory or constitutional provisions are discussed or analyzed in the order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms the established procedural principle that persistent non-appearance leads to dismissal for default, without deciding the merits.