Section 133: Judgment on the day proceedings end

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1878/2542 (1999)

   Where the defendant, duly notified, fails to appear and is treated as not contesting so the proceedings are concluded, the court may render judgment on the day of the order under Section 133 without further notifying the defendant of a judgment-reading date.

   The defendant, though duly notified, did not appear, so the court found the defendant had no evidence and treated the case as concluded. The Supreme Court held that under Section 133 the court could give judgment that day without again notifying the defendant of a judgment-reading date.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6153/2548 (2005)

   Where there is good reason, such as partial performance and an agreed short repayment period unopposed by the other side, the court should postpone the making of its judgment or order for the interest of justice under Section 133.

   The Supreme Court held there was good reason to postpone the judgment for the interest of justice under Section 133, given partial approval of the plan and a short repayment date the plaintiff did not oppose, so the lower court was wrong to refuse the postponement and immediately order absolute receivership.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4407/2551 (2008)

   Section 133 requires the court to decide a case not struck out by making a judgment or order at the close of proceedings, and permits postponing the judgment to a later day for the interest of justice.

   Addressing a complaint that the trial court read the appellate judgment and set a date to read its own new judgment without notifying the parties, the Supreme Court set out Section 133 in full, noting the court decides at the close of proceedings and may postpone the judgment for the interest of justice.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.