<![CDATA[The application of default judgments in the resolution of simple Sharia economic lawsuits still raises issues regarding the consistency of applying the legal consequences of a defendant’s failure to appear. These inconsistencies in application have the potential to create legal uncertainty and affect the consistency of judicial practice in economic cases of sharia. This study aims to analyze the application of the legal consequences of default judgments in simple Islamic economic lawsuits and identify the factors causing inconsistencies in their application through an analysis of Magetan Religious Court Decisions No. 49/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt and No. 102/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt. This study employed a normative legal method with a juridical approach. The data were analyzed descriptively and comparatively by comparing judges’ reasoning in both decisions, utilizing the concept of recognition in civil procedure law, the theory of legal discovery, and the theory of legal certainty. The results indicate that both decisions based their reasoning on Article 125 of the HIR (Dutch Civil Code), yet differed in applying the legal consequences of a default judgment. Judgment No. 49/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt still conducted a substantive review of the legal relationship between the parties, resulting in the claim being granted in part, whereas Judgment No. 102/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt granted the entire claim after the evidence was deemed sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ arguments. These differences indicate the absence of a uniform standard in interpreting the relationship between the defendant’s absence, admission, and the burden of proof. This study concludes that the lack of clear guidelines regarding the application of the legal consequences of default has the potential to lead to inconsistent rulings and undermine legal certainty in the resolution of Islamic economic disputes. [Penerapan putusan verstek dalam penyelesaian gugatan sederhana ekonomi syariah masih menyisakan persoalan terkait konsistensi penerapan akibat hukum dari ketidakhadiran tergugat. Perbedaan penerapan tersebut berpotensi menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum serta memengaruhi konsistensi praktik peradilan dalam perkara ekonomi syariah. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis penerapan akibat hukum putusan verstek dalam gugatan sederhana ekonomi syariah serta mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan inkonsistensi penerapannya melalui analisis terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Agama Magetan Nomor 49/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt dan Nomor 102/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode hukum normatif dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif. Data dianalisis secara deskriptif-komparatif melalui perbandingan pertimbangan hakim dalam kedua putusan dengan menggunakan konsep pengakuan dalam hukum acara perdata, teori penemuan hukum, dan teori kepastian hukum. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kedua putusan sama-sama mendasarkan pertimbangannya pada Pasal 125 HIR, namun berbeda dalam menerapkan akibat hukum verstek. Putusan Nomor 49/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt tetap melakukan pengujian substantif terhadap hubungan hukum para pihak sehingga gugatan dikabulkan sebagian, sedangkan Putusan Nomor 102/Pdt.G.S/2025/PA.Mgt mengabulkan seluruh gugatan setelah alat bukti dinilai cukup mendukung dalil penggugat. Perbedaan tersebut menunjukkan belum adanya standar yang seragam dalam memaknai hubungan antara ketidakhadiran tergugat, pengakuan, dan pembuktian. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa ketiadaan pedoman yang jelas mengenai penerapan akibat hukum verstek berpotensi menimbulkan inkonsistensi putusan dan mengurangi kepastian hukum dalam penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah].]]>
