The Calcutta High Court confirms that where parties repeatedly fail to appear, an appeal may be dismissed for default after sufficient opportunity is granted. The decision does not alter existing legal precedent but reinforces procedural discipline, serving as binding authority within its jurisdiction, particularly affecting civil procedure and appellate practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/1107/1965 of GOURI PROSANNA BANERJEE Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF BIRBHUM AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0002631965 |
| Date of Registration | 13-07-1964 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction for dismissals on grounds of default |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and may act as persuasive precedent for courts considering procedural default in appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that failure of appearance by parties, even after a “last chance” is granted, justifies dismissal for default.
- Lawyers must be vigilant about court-listed warnings and ensure representation to avoid dismissal of appeals.
- Interim orders, if any, stand vacated upon such default dismissals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that this was the fourth occasion on which no party appeared for either side when the matter was called.
- A “last chance” had already been extended by order dated October 24, 2025, giving further opportunity to the appellant to present arguments.
- As there was continued non-appearance at the subsequent hearing, the court proceeded to dismiss the appeal for default, vacating any interim orders.
- No costs were imposed as part of the dismissal.
- The court’s approach reinforces procedural discipline and endorses the principle that fair opportunity fulfills the demands of natural justice before dismissal for default.
Arguments by the Parties
No submissions or arguments by parties are recorded in the judgment, as neither side appeared at the hearing.
Factual Background
- The matter before the court was Second Appeal No. 1107 of 1965 involving Gouri Prosanna Banerjee and the State of West Bengal, among others.
- The appeal had been listed multiple times but none of the parties appeared at call, despite issuance of a “last chance” order.
- As a result of persistent absence by both parties, the court dismissed the appeal for default and vacated interim relief.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not record discussion or interpretation of any specific statutory provisions. It is grounded in the recognized procedural authority of the court to dismiss matters for default after ample opportunity is given.
Procedural Innovations
- The court emphasized giving a “last chance” before effecting default dismissal, thereby safeguarding minimum procedural fairness to the parties before terminating proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court adhered to established practice by dismissing for default only after repeated opportunities and warnings to the parties.