The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that repeated non-appearance of parties results in dismissal for default in a second appeal, thereby following established procedural law without altering existing substantive principles. This ruling offers limited, primarily procedural, precedential value for similar future defaults rather than for substantive legal arguments on appeal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/1031/1965 of SM.MONMATHA GAYEN & ORS. Vs SAHISH CH. BANSHI |
| CNR | WBCHCA0001631965 |
| Date of Registration | 09-11-1964 |
| 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 new substantive precedent set; relevant on default procedures |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that after repeated opportunities afforded to parties for appearance, failure to appear results in dismissal of the appeal for default. No substantive law issue was determined; the matter was disposed solely on procedural grounds. Finality was brought to the matter by vacation of interim orders and no costs were awarded. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Despite four opportunities given to the parties—including a final adjournment—no one appeared for appellants at the time of call, leading to dismissal for default. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All benches of Calcutta High Court with respect to procedural dismissal for non-appearance |
| Persuasive For | Procedural guidance for subordinate courts dealing with repeated non-appearance in appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment confirms that sustained non-appearance by parties after repeated opportunities will prompt the High Court to dismiss an appeal for default.
- Finality is ensured by vacation of all interim orders upon dismissal for default.
- No costs are ordered upon such procedural dismissal, unless otherwise specified.
- Lawyers should ensure appearance or representation, particularly after a “last chance” is given, to avoid dismissal.
- This judgment serves as procedural authority, not on merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that neither party appeared after being provided multiple chances to do so, including a last opportunity specified by order dated October 24, 2025.
- Since non-appearance persisted even on the fourth call, the court dismissed the appeal for default as per established practice.
- The court vacated interim orders and made no order as to costs, thereby finalising the procedural disposition without influencing the substantive merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments were recorded by either party, as none appeared before the court at the time of call, despite repeated opportunities.
Factual Background
- The second appeal (SA No. 1031 of 1965) came before the Calcutta High Court.
- Multiple opportunities have historically been granted to both sides for oral arguments, with a “last chance” ordered on October 24, 2025.
- On October 31, 2025, at the scheduled hearing, neither party appeared before the court.
- The judge proceeded to dismiss the appeal for default after the fourth instance of non-appearance.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment is purely procedural and does not engage in statutory analysis or interpretation of any substantive law or statutory provision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring views were delivered; the order was passed by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
The court vacated all interim orders upon dismissal for default, reinforcing the importance of active participation for preservation of interim protection.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows established procedural practice regarding dismissal for default due to repeated non-appearance.