Calcutta High Court affirms that repeated non-appearance by parties can result in dismissal of appeals for default, reiterating the settled judicial standard; the principle retains full precedential value for procedural dismissals across all civil courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/916/1965 of BUDGE BUDGE AMALGAMATED MILLS LIMITED Vs RAMNARAIN MISRA |
| CNR | WBCHCA0002721965 |
| 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 all subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural Civil Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when neither party appears on repeated calls despite being granted a “last chance,” no option remains but to dismiss the appeals for default. The dismissal was effected after multiple opportunities were given, demonstrating due diligence by the court. This underscores that persistent non-appearance, especially after explicit warnings, justifies procedural dismissal for default. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The matters were listed several times, most recently on September 18, 2025, and October 24, 2025, on both of which occasions no party appeared. By the last order, an explicit final opportunity was given for arguing the appeals. On the next call (October 31, 2025), again, no one appeared for any party, compelling the court to dismiss the matters for default. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate forums dealing with default of appearance in appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a “last chance” extended by the court for appearance is conclusive; further non-appearance can (and will) result in dismissal for default.
- Ensures that repeated adjournments without representation will not be tolerated.
- Lawyers must pay heed to repeated calls and explicit court warnings regarding appearance, as appeals may be dismissed summarily.
- The court vacates all interim orders upon default dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the appeals were listed multiple times, and on each occasion, none of the parties appeared.
- On October 24, 2025, the court granted a clear “last chance” to the appellants to argue.
- On October 31, 2025, again, no representation was made for either side.
- The court held that with repeated opportunities exhausted, there is “no recourse left” but to dismiss for default.
- All pending interim orders automatically stood vacated upon such dismissal.
- The decision relies purely on the consistent application of procedural fairness and the inherent powers of the court to regulate its docket and ensure expeditious disposal.
Arguments by the Parties
- None appear for the parties at the time of call.
- No arguments are recorded for either the appellant or respondents as no one appeared for either side on the listed dates.
Factual Background
- Multiple second appeals arising from disputes involving Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Limited were pending before the Calcutta High Court.
- The matters were repeatedly listed on the court’s board.
- On at least two preceding dates (September 18, 2025, and October 24, 2025), neither party appeared.
- The court explicitly granted a final opportunity on October 24, 2025.
- On the appointed day, October 31, 2025, once again, there was no appearance on behalf of either party, leading to dismissal for default.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not explicitly cite or interpret statutory provisions but implicates the procedural principle allowing appellate courts to dismiss matters for default upon non-appearance, consistent with civil procedure norms.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations are introduced; the court relied on standard procedure of providing a “last chance” and dismissing for default upon further non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court applies established procedural law for dismissals due to default and non-appearance.