Yes, the Court can do so.
Added; (in the US) It all depends on WHOSE witness is lying. It is pretty much understood that the defendant and their witnesses will not tell the truth. A case will not be dismissed because of this.
If a prosecution witness is caught in a lie, the court must determine just how badly that witnesses's false testimony impacted the case. If their lie damaged the case irrevocably it is more likely the judge will declare a mis-trial rather then simply dismissing the entire case. But... anything is possible.
It means that the case is dismissed because the plaintiff did not show up in court.
Dismiss "with leave" means the case is dismissed, but the plaintiff may re-file to (hopefully) fix whatever was incomplete or otherwise lacking in the original filing. Dismiss with leave is contrasted with dismiss on the merits, which means the case is dismissed and the plaintiff may not re-file. Thus the plaintiff has lost the case.
It is possible for a court case to be dismissed if the plaintiff does not show up but their attorney does. However, this typically depends on the circumstances of the case and the judge's discretion. The judge may choose to proceed with the case or dismiss it based on factors such as the reasons for the plaintiff's absence and the importance of their testimony.
Plaintiffs do not charge. They file lawsuits. The plaintiff can always file, but if the case is dismissed with prejudice, a new filing cannot be litigated. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means res judicata applies, and a new filing would be dismissed because the issues have already been litigated. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, it means that it has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for some reason to allow the case to be refiled and re-litigated later.
I think this means when the Plaintiff's case is dismissed, meaning the court is not going forward with the charges, and with the costs, means the Plaintiff is responsible for the court costs. Usually this is done when the court feels the case isn't supported by facts, or evidence, or that the case shouldn't have been filed to begin with. Now it has been a while since a worked in the court system, but I think this still holds water.
It means that case can be brought again. Usually the plaintiff was unable to produce all the documentation and needs to get the case in order.
The wording of the question is too cryptic - however - it appears that the Plaintiffs claim was dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of prosecution (e.g.: The plaintiff failed to appear in court to press their case -or- the plaintiff withdrew their case- etc).
It is not required to have an attorney present at a small claims hearing.
You lose. If the defendant doesn't show up for their notified court hearing, a default judgment will be made against them. If the plaintiff doesn't show up, the case will be dismissed. In the case of a defendant, the plaintiff will then go about collecting the award through garnishment of wages and placing liens on property.
Ordinarily, the case will be dismissed. The onus is upon the Plaintiff to move the case along and meet a burden of proof. If he/she/it does not appear, that cannot be done. Likewise, if the Defendant does not appear, no defense to the action can be asserted. Therefore, the case will be dismissed.
Then the action will be dismissed.
If the defendant fails to appear in a civil court lawsuit, the plaintiff can motion the court for what is known as a default judgement. In laymen terms, they win. If the defendant shows up but the plaintiff did not, they can motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice. This means that the person who sued them cannot bring the same matter back to the courts again.