The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that a second appeal can be dismissed for default if neither party appears and the matter is pending for an excessive period, in this case exceeding fifty years. This judgment follows established precedent, emphasizing procedural compliance and serving as a reminder for litigants and counsel regarding diligent prosecution. It has binding authority within the court’s jurisdiction and practical value for all courts managing dormant cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/507/1971 of AMARNATH BANDYAPADHYAY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0000971971 |
| Date of Registration | 01-01-1971 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; reaffirmation of existing procedural powers |
| Type of Law | Procedural – Civil Appeals |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Calcutta High Court held that, given the prolonged pendency of over fifty years and the absence of both parties on the date of hearing, the second appeal stands dismissed for default. The power to dismiss for default is reaffirmed as an essential tool for streamlining the judicial docket and maintaining procedural discipline. All interim orders were vacated. The judgment reflects the court’s continuing commitment to efficient case management. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The present second appeal had been pending for over fifty years; on the date listed, neither party appeared. The court dismissed the appeal for default and vacated all interim orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On |
|
| Persuasive For | May be cited before other High Courts and national tribunals for procedural management of dormant appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that inordinate delay and absence of parties will justify dismissal of appeals for default under procedural law.
- Long pendency (over fifty years in this case) intensifies the court’s readiness to exercise this power.
- All interim orders attached to such appeals are automatically vacated upon dismissal for default.
- Counsel and parties are reminded of the need for active monitoring of listed cases, no matter how old.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the extraordinary and unjustifiable delay, with the second appeal pending for more than fifty years.
- Neither party appeared when the matter was called for hearing.
- Considering both the prolonged pendency and the absence of parties, the court exercised its power to dismiss the appeal for default.
- The dismissal also resulted in vacation of all interim orders.
- The court’s order aligns with established procedural practice meant to prevent indefinite clogging of the judicial docket.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments by either Petitioner or Respondent are recorded, as neither party appeared before the court on the date of hearing.
Factual Background
The second appeal, registered on 01-01-1971, remained pending before the Calcutta High Court for over fifty years. On the date fixed for hearing, 10-09-2025, no appearance was made by any of the parties. Thus, the court proceeded to dismiss the appeal for default and vacated all interim orders.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions are analyzed in detail within this judgment. The procedural mechanism permitting dismissal for default in the absence of appearance after prolonged pendency is implicit.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law for dismissal for default is applied and reaffirmed.