Appearance/Non-appearance

Introduction: Appearance and non-appearance is a major issue to settle a dispute. Because, mere appearance or non- appearance may determine the result of the suit. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are based on a general principle that, as far as possible, no proceeding in a court of law should be conducted to the detriment of any party in his/her absence[1]. It is the duty of the concern party to appear before the trial court at a due time. Otherwise, the result may turn reverse to the non-appeared party. However, if the suit is determine at that date for the lacking of non-appearance of a party, the affected party may have a chance to revive the suit by following the provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Actually, Order-IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enumerates the provision of consequence(s) of appearance and non-appearance of parties in a civil litigation. Especially, Order- IX, rule- 2 enumerates the consequence of failure of deposit of process fees by the plaintiff; rule- 3 & 4 provides the consequence of non-appearance of both (Plaintiff & Defendant) parties. Rule- 8, 9, 9A enumerates the consequences of non-appearance of Plaintiff and lastly rule- 6, 13 & 13A deals with the provision of non-appearance of Defendant. Lets us discuss all these three one by one.

Connotation of the word appearance: The word “appearance” has a well-recognised meaning and means appearance in person or through advocate for conducting a case[2].
So, appearance may be by a party in person or by an advocate or by a party in person along with his advocate[3].

“Appearance” by a pleader within the meaning of Order IX does not, as if appearance by a party in person means mere presence of the court; it means “appearance by a pleader” duly instructed an able to answer all material questions relating to suit[4].     
Appearance of the parties: Rule 1 of Order IX deals with the provision of appearance of the parties. On the day fixed in the summons for the defendant to appear and answer, the parties shall be in attendance at the Court-house in person or by their respective pleaders, and the suit shall then be heard unless the hearing is adjourned to a future day fixed by the Court.
Rule 1 requires the parties to the suit attend the Courthouse in person or by their respective pleaders on the day fixed in the summons for the defendant to appear. So the rule relates to the appearance of the first hearing of the suit.[5]

Thus, it is not sufficient for them to take any course, short of appearance. It is not sufficient for the defendant to send a letter to the court or for his advocate merely to file a Vokalatnama, while remaining absent[6].

Dismissal of the suit for the lacking of process fee by the plaintiff: If the plaintiff is failed to deposit process fees to the court within the stipulated time stipulated by the court, then the suit may dismiss[7] as per rule- 2 of the said Order. As per the language of the Code the provision is:
“Where on the day so fixed it is found that the summons has not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court-fee or postal charges, if any, chargeable for such service, or failure to present copies of the plaint as required by rule 9 of Order VII, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed:

Provided that no such order shall be made, if, notwithstanding such failure, the defendant attends in person or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent on the day fixed for him to appear and answer he attends in person or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent”.
Consequences of non-appearance by the plaintiff: On the date of peremptory hearing, if the plaintiff not appears but the defendant appears then the suit will dismiss under O- 9, r- 8.
(The rule said: Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder”.)
Remedies: If a suit is dismissed under Order- 9 or 3 then the plaintiff has two-fold options to revive his dismissed suit. Those are as follows:
i)                    Filing a fresh suit before the competent court, if the suit is not bar by law and
ii)                  The Plaintiff may files a petition under O-9, R- 4.
(The Rule- 4 is: “Where a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or rule 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit, or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for [such failure as is referred to in rule 2], or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit”.)
This petition under O-9, R- 4 is one type of Misc. case. The case should be filed within 30 days from the date of cancellation of such suit as per Art. 162 of the Limitation Act. However, after the expire of that 30 days the case mat be filed by virtue of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The phrase “Sufficient cause” mentioned in sec. 5 of the mentioned law means the cause, which is beyond the control of the alleged person. It may an act of God or a mere man made disaster. Where there are concurrent remedies are available the duty of the concern lawyer is to choice the best one for the benefit of the party.
If the suit is, dismiss under O- 9, r- 8; then the plaintiff have two concurrent remedies:
i)                    He may file a petition by swearing an affidavit to the concern court within 30 days from the date of such dismissal along with a fees not more than 1000Tk. and
ii)                  He may file a fresh suit.


Consequence of non-appearance by the defendant: On the date of peremptory hearing, if the plaintiff is present but the defendant not present then the suit will decreed ex-parte as per O-9, r- 6.
(The rule is: “(1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then-
[(a)] When summons duly served-if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit shall be heard ex pane.]
(b) When summons not duly served-if it is not proved that the summons was duly serve, the Court shall direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant;
(c) When summons served but not in due time-if it is proved that the summons was served on the defendant, but not in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed in the summons, the Court shall postpone the hearing of the suit to future day to be fixed by the Court, and shall direct notice of such day to be given to the defendant.
(2) Where it is owing to the plaintiffs' default that the summons was not duly served or was not served in sufficient time, the Court shall order the plaintiff to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement”.)
Proceedings under Order- 9, rule 9A is a special type of Litigation and there is no scope of condonation of delay.
A Misc. case must be file before the trial court. If a Misc. case under O-9, r- 4 is dismissed, the remedy is revision and if a misc. case under O- 9, r- 9 (“(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. and shall appoint a day for proceeding with suit.
(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party”.) is dismissed then the plaintiff files an appeal because it is an appeal able order and it is called as Misc. Appeal. Order- 43, r- 1(a-w) provides the list of appeal able order. If the filed misc. case is granted, then whether opposite party can file appeal against such order is not clear by law, that’s why this type of matter deal by revision, because where there is no appeal there is a provision of revision.
Remedies: If an ex parte decree is passed against the defendant then the defendant has to take five types of action against such decision among them three is most vital. These are:
i)                    In accordance with O- 9, r- 13A defendant has to file a petition by swearing an affidavit within 30 days to the trial court to set aside the decision with a fine not more than Tk. 3000. Defendant can get this opportunity once as per the provision of law,
ii)                  As per O-9, r- 13 he may apply for setting aside the ex parte decree. In this case, the defendant shall prove sufficient case but in former case, a defendant need not prove sufficient cause for non-appearance,
iii)                He may file an appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC. No appeal can continue in compromise decree but an appeal may file against ex parte decree,
iv)                The defendant may file a review petition before the same court under O- 47, r- 1, Sec. 114 of CPC and
v)                  The defendant may file an independent suit for cancellation of the decree as per Sec. 42 & 39 of the Specific Relief Act.
Application for set aside ex-parte decree: Rule 13 as follows: “In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit;
Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also”.
Rule 13 deals with setting aside ex-parte decree passed against the defendant. Whereas the remedies by way of appeal and review is available to any person against whom a decree is passed, the remedy provided by this rule can be available  of only by the defendant for whose default of appearance an ex-parte decree is passed.
“Sufficient cause” has not been defined anywhere in the Code. It is a question of fact. It is determine by the fact and circumstances of each case[8].
Consequences of non-appearance of both the parties (plaintiff & defendant): On the date of peremptory or final hearing if both, the parties (Plaintiff & Defendant) absent from the hearing then the suit may dismiss according to O- IX, rule- 3. The rule said: “Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed”.
Ending Remarks: Hence, non-appearance has a great impact upon a civil proceeding. It is duty of the concern parties to appear before the learned court at the due time and helps the court to settle the dispute; otherwise, the absent party may suffer and not entitled to get justice.
Selected Bibliography:
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs;
2. The Code of Civil Procedure: Concept, comment & case- Mohammad Gholam Rabbani;
3. Law of Civil Procedure- Mahmudul Islam & Probir Niogi;
4. Law of Civil Procedure- Naim Uddin Ahmed;
5. Civil Procedure- C K Takwani;
6. Principles of Civil Litigations- Ishrat Azim Ahmed & Md. Ershadul Karim.


[1] 28 DLR159 SC
[2] 59 Cal 736
[3] 11 CWN 329
[4] 1987 BLD 89 AD
[5] 2 All 67 PC.
[6] 1945 Sind 98
[7] Begum Para Nasir Khan V Fernandes
[8] UCO Bank V Lyengar Consultancy Service

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Necessity of Reforming the International Crimes Tribunals Law of Bangladesh for Fair Trial

  The present interim government of Bangladesh has decided to try the former ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina before the International Cr...