Rule 2A of Appellate Side Rules dispenses with service of appeal notice on non-appearing trial court respondents.

The appellant’s predecessor (Nilima Banerjee) filed an application for revocation of the letters of administration granted to the respondents in L.A. Case No. 5 of 1976

The letters of administration concerned the will of Satadal Basini Devi, under which the appellant was not a beneficiary

During the original proceedings, the appellant’s father and brother had filed a vakalatnama but did not contest the case

After the trial court initially rejected the grant, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in F.A. 53 of 1987 directed the grant of letters of administration on September 21, 1999

The appellant subsequently filed Revocation Misc. Case No. 9 of 2002, alleging non-service of notice of the 1987 appeal and fraud in obtaining her signature on the vakalatnama

The trial court rejected the revocation application, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the non-service of notice of the first appeal (F.A. 53 of 1987) on a respondent who did not contest the original trial proceedings vitiates the subsequent grant of letters of administration

2. Whether the appellant's plea of non est factum regarding the signing of a vakalatnama is sustainable given her educational background and admission of the document's character

3. Whether the appellant’s expectation of inheritance constitutes a valid ground for a suspicious circumstance surrounding the will

The court applied Order 41 Rule 14(4) of the CPC, which dispenses with service of incidental proceedings on a non-contesting party, and Rule 2A under Chapter 5 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, which further dispenses with notice of the main appeal for parties who failed to appear in the lower court despite service

The court also invoked Order 41 Rule 21 of the CPC, which provides the exclusive remedy (re-hearing) for a respondent against whom an ex parte decree is made

Regarding the plea of non est factum, the court relied on Saunders v. Anglia (1970) and Ramathal & Ors. v. K. Rajamani (2023), establishing that the plea is only available to those unable to understand a document due to blindness, illiteracy, or fundamental mistake as to the document's character

The court reasoned that under Rule 2A of the Appellate Side Rules, mere filing of a vakalatnama without active participation renders a party a "non-appearing respondent," thus exempting the respondents from serving notice of the 1987 appeal upon the appellant

Furthermore, since Order 41 Rule 21 provides a specific remedy for lack of service in appeals, the appellant was barred from raising this grievance via a separate revocation case

Regarding the fraud claim, the court found the plea of non est factum inapplicable because the appellant was educated and explicitly admitted in her pleadings that she knew she was signing a vakalatnama, even if she claimed ignorance of its specific purpose

Finally, the court held that the appellant’s "stray emotion" or expectation of receiving property did not constitute a "suspicious circumstance" sufficient to challenge a will that had already been upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench

It held that: (i) no fresh notice of appeal was required for a party who did not participate in the trial [para 15]; (ii) the plea of non est factum is unavailable to a person who understands the nature of the document signed [para 24]; and (iii) the parent judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated September 21, 1999, remains unchallenged and final [para 28]. No order as to costs was made [para 31].