Case Note & Summary
The Patna High Court dealt with Second Appeal No. 385 of 1992, where the appellants were Barho Mahto and others, and the respondents were Ayodhya Mistry and others. The court also considered Second Appeal No. 386 of 1992 involving Lachhminiya Devi and others against Uttam Mistry and others. On the date of the hearing, 12th September 2012, the court noted that despite repeated calls, no parties appeared before it. Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal for default, indicating that the absence of representation from both sides hindered the proceedings. The court's decision was based on the procedural requirement for parties to appear in order for the appeal to be heard. The dismissal was formalized by Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo, who presided over the matter. The judgment underscored the importance of presence in court proceedings and the consequences of failing to appear.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Default - Non-appearance of Parties - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court dismissed the second appeal for default as no parties appeared despite repeated calls. The absence of representation led to the conclusion that the appeal could not proceed, resulting in dismissal (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal should be dismissed for default due to non-appearance of parties
Final Decision
The court dismissed the second appeal for default as no parties appeared despite repeated calls.
Law Points
- Dismissal for default
- Second appeal procedure
