Is it permissible to rule on a resident near the court who is absent but not prevented from attending?

Primary text

The ruling is not to be passed against a resident near the jurisdiction, or close to it, before their attendance, according to the opinion of most scholars. The rationale is that since it is possible to question them, judgment is not allowed before their questioning, similar to a person present in the judge's council. This differs from a distant absentee, who cannot be questioned. If the resident refuses to attend or conceals himself, the explicit statement attributed to Ahmad suggests it is permissible to judge against him based on the established legal reasoning.