Patna High Court

RAM NARAYAN RENU and ORS.versusDR. HARI NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH

Decided: 5 January 2026
Disposal: D.F.D. FOR NON APPEARANCE
Bench: RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for default under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Summary

The appellants filed a first appeal in 2011 before the Patna High Court. On multiple scheduled dates in 2025, no counsel or party appeared on behalf of the appellants despite repeated notices. The respondent's counsel was present throughout. The court examined the record and, noting the continuous non-appearance of the appellants, invoked Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. The judgment underscores the procedural requirement of appearing or being represented in appellate proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal may be dismissed for default when the appellant fails to appear before the court despite notices.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order 41 Rule 17

Subjects

default judgment
civil procedure
appeal
non-appearance
Order 41

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                          FIRST APPEAL No.34 of 2011
                  ======================================================
                  1. Ram Narayan Renu, Son of Late Bhola Mahto.
                  2. Krishna Prasad Son of Late Bhola Mahto.
                  3. Jaynendra Kumar, Son of Late Bhola Mahto.
                  4. Rampari Devi, Daughter of Bhola Mahto.
                  5. Jitendra Narayan Sinha.
                  6. Bhagwati Charan.
                  7. Avinash Kumar.
                     Appellant nos. 5 to 7 are sons of Dr. Raghunandan Prasad
                  8. Indu Kumari.
                  9. Madhuri Kumari.
                  10. Kumari Kiran Prabha.
                  11. Supriya Sinha.
                  All Appellant no. 8 to 11, Daughter of Raghunandan Prasad.
                  12. Dr. Raghunandan Prasad, Son of Late Bhikhari Mahta.
                  All residents of Village-Daha Bigha, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda at present
                  residing at J-55, peoples Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna.

                                                                   ... ..Plaintiff/s . Appellant/s
                                                     Versus
                  1. Dr. Hari Narayan Prasad Singh Son of Late Chhotan Mahto, resident of
                  Village-Shanti Bhawan Sathopur, P.S. Deep Nagar, District- Nalanda.
                  2. Ram Lakhan Prasad Singh, Son of Late Chhotan Mahto, resident of
                  Navneet Colony, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Hanuman Nagar, District- Patna.
                  3. Rajeev Prasad, Son of Late Diwakar Sharma @ Saryug Prasad.
                  4. Smt. Sharda Devi, Wife of Shobhi Mahto.
                  Resident of Village- Daha Bigha, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda at present
                  residing at D/46, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Appellant/s    :       None
                  For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
               ======================================================
              CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
                                     ORAL ORDER

34   05-01-2026                 On several dates i.e., on 09.09.2025, 25.09.2025 and

                    20.11.2025, nobody appears on behalf of the learned counsel for

                    the appellants.

                                2. On perusal of the records, it appears that this first

                    appeal is of the year 2011 and the appellants are absented from
            Patna High Court FA No.34 of 2011(34) dt.05-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                      several dates and even today on repeated calls, no one appears

                      on behalf of the appellants, so in this circumstances, this first

                      appeal is dismissed for default under Order 41 Rule 17 of the

                      Code of Civil Procedure.

                                   3. Nobody appears on behalf of learned counsel for

                      the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents is present.


                                                                  (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

Anand Kr.

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…