Disregarding the court orders and failure to show up at the court hearing fixed by courts of law might be a ground to prove the right claimed against a defendant is evidentiary.

We refer to a case below as an example to make readers understand how a court decided to terminate a partnership and ordered the reimbursement of capital investment of the claimant; 

The plaintiff approached the court of First Instance claiming that he paid the defendant as much as SAR 80,000 as a capital for a partnership venture in rental business. By way of an agreement the defendant promised the plaintiff that the plaintiff would be paid its share of the dividends generated from the rent which amounted to SAR 75,000 that belongs to the establishment in which the plaintiff is a partner as per the agreement. However, the defendant delayed the payment so the plaintiff approached the court to get the dividend and reimbursement of the capital to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was able to provide the agreement which was convincing to the court to identify the terms agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Concluding the statement, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant be order to return the capital in full and the dividends. Consequently, the court adjourned the case and ordered the services of the defendant be suspended. Despite being served with a summons by the circuit court to the defendant did not appear before court. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant be tried in absentia. Based on the plaintiff’s pleading the court ordered closure of any more pleadings in the case and set for issuing the verdict.

The court was being proved that the defendant has been served with notice the date of the hearing and he failed to turn up at the hearing, this shall be deemed as a refusal and an implicit acknowledgment by him that the case subject is valid.

As such, the trial court to pass a judgement for default and forced the defendant to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

Being dissatisfied with the trial court ruling, the defendant knocked the door of the appellate court, which did not find in the appeal what could overrule the primary judgement and upheld the lower court and dismissed the appeal.

Therefore, in most of the cases like aforesaid, the appeal court would always support the lower court decision if the lower court followed all formalities in serving the notice and if it is proved that the summon was served to the defendant, despite this process if the defendant failed to appear in the hearings then it would be clear that the defendant purposely ignored the hearing just to refrain from fulfilling the claim of the claimant it proves that there is no good intention of defendant/appellant making his case even weaker.