''Non-appearance after repeated summons issuance'' refers to the circumstance under which summons have been issued for many times by theyamen(government office of feudal China) whereas the official staff fail to bring the corresponding litigant to theyamen . As shown in the Longquan Judicial Files, about 10 cases in the Late Qing Dynasty ended up with non-appearanceafter repeated summons issuance. Causes of such a circumstance include but are not limited to the favouritism, irregularities and dereliction of theyamenstaff. The whole process of ''non-appearance after repeated summons issuance'' is generally completed by the feudal official,yamenstaff and the parties of the case together, and its causes are closely related to the traditional Chinese idea about case-handling and the parties' abuse of the official case-handling mode. The part of Longquan Judicial Files recording the cases in the Late Qing Dynasty shows the special mode of case-handling called ''non-appearance after repeated summons issuance'': the county magistrate deems that there is dissemblance or breach of reason in the litigation and shows reluctance to accept and hear the case, but due to the insistence of the plaintiff, he accepts it and issues summon for interrogation and trial|however, he expresses a negative attitude in his reply to the plaintiff's indictment, which encourages theyamenstaff to regard the case as a non-urgent one or one from which benefit may be extorted, leading to their unscrupulous behavior and delay. The whole process consists of two aspects: on the one hand, the plaintiff should embrace adequate fortune, supporting himself to persuade the county magistrate to issue summons repeatedly|on the other hand, the accused should also be rich enough (both in fortune and social network) to bribe theyamenstaff, in order to keep a non-appearance state in the trial persistently. If no accident, such a circumstance may continue infinitely,till one of the parties fails to maintain this process with his finite financial resources and ends up as the looser of the case.  Social order, in whatever civilization, is established with complexity, and there is no exception in China's litigation system. Among countless legal cases, an individual case handled according to legal rules solely without considering human nature and reason, or otherwise, is always not hard to be found. However, the basis of a judgment can never prevent the case-handlingprocess from being one of the traditional Chinese case-handling modes. Actually, plenty of social disputes end up unaccepted, or are solved through mediation out court, and we can even say that the traditional Chinese legal culture gives full play to the idea of ''the social order dispensing with law.'' Nevertheless, law and ''the social order dispensing with law'' both have their own limitations. A lot of social disputes cannot be solved through litigation, and they are shown as inevitable conflicts to which only power (such as financial and social resources) is the final way of solution. The circumstance of ''non-appearance after repeatedsummons issuance'' unfolds another possible mode of traditional litigation system, and this mode manifests that some disputes may develop, rather than be solved, through litigation. Here, it is not the basis of judgment (human nature, reason or law), but the judicial proceedings with high cost and malpractice that may exert certain influence on the dispute, which means that litigation is not a judicator of the dispute, rather, it's only a field in which the two parties can compete with each other for their own benefit.