The Calcutta High Court confirms that, where parties repeatedly fail to appear despite ample opportunities, second appeals may be dismissed for default; this decision upholds existing procedural precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/919/1965 of BUDGE BUDGE AMALGAMATED MILLS LIMITED Vs BHIM CHANDRA |
| CNR | WBCHCA0002731965 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-1964 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing procedural law concerning dismissal for non-appearance |
| Type of Law | Civil Appellate Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether second appeals can be dismissed for default when parties are persistently absent |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where none of the parties, despite being given opportunities over multiple dates, appear to argue their appeals, the court is left with no choice but to dismiss the matters for default. This affirms the authority of appellate courts to ensure expeditious disposal of matters and prevent indefinite pendency due to lack of prosecution. Notices and the granting of a “last chance” emphasize the procedural fairness afforded before dismissal. The court also vacated all interim orders in consequence of such dismissal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
On multiple occasions, including September 18, 2025 and October 24, 2025, none appeared for the parties. An order dated October 24, 2025 gave a final opportunity to the appellant to argue the matters, but on the subsequent date of hearing, there was still no representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for default, and all interim orders stood vacated. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Affirms established procedure wherein non-prosecution can lead to dismissal of civil appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appellate courts are empowered to dismiss second appeals for default if parties fail to appear after repeated opportunities.
- “Last chance” orders signaling imminent dismissal highlight the importance of diligent prosecution and client communication for advocates.
- Interim relief is automatically vacated upon dismissal for default.
- Lawyers must stay vigilant with monitoring cause lists and appearance to avoid dismissal for non-prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment documents a clear sequence: repeated non-appearance of parties on scheduled dates, including September 18, 2025, and October 24, 2025.
- The court had previously issued a “last chance” order providing appellants a final opportunity to argue the matters.
- On continued absence, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeals for default, citing lack of recourse due to non-prosecution.
- The dismissal was procedural, grounded in the inherent powers of the court to prevent indefinite pendency and maintain judicial discipline.
- All interim orders attached to the appeals were explicitly vacated upon dismissal.
Arguments by the Parties
None stated; the judgment records that no parties appeared on the successive dates, nor were any arguments presented.
Factual Background
On several adjourned dates, including September 18, 2025, and October 24, 2025, none of the parties (including the appellant Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Limited and the respective respondents) appeared before the court to prosecute the second appeals. The court granted a clear “last chance” on October 24, 2025, for arguments to be advanced, but on the next listed date, no one represented the parties. As a result, the court dismissed the second appeals for default and lifted any interim orders previously in force.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment applies and affirms established principles of civil appellate procedure, namely that courts may dismiss appeals for default when parties fail to pursue litigation diligently.
- No specific statutory provisions are cited or interpreted in detail.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; the judgment is by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or departures from existing practice are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.