The Court granted a second and final opportunity of two weeks to the applicant to take steps against unserved Respondent No.1. Failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the Civil Revision Application for failure to prosecute.
Two weeks time granted to serve Respondent No.1; otherwise application stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.597 OF 2024
| Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders |
Court’s or Judge’s orders |
|---|---|
| CORAM :S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL.-II) DATE : 25thNovember, 2024 |
|
| Advocate Sunil Kadam for Applicant Present. |
|
The above numbered Civil Revision |
|
| Application is listed on board of Registrar for | |
| second time. Already two weeks time has | |
| been granted, however, despite granting | |
| two weeks time, Advocate for the Applicant | |
| has not taken any steps against unserved | |
| Respondent No.1. Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub |
|
| rule 1 and 2 of the Bombay High Court, | |
| Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short | |
| “Rules”) may be conveniently made. It | |
| states about Processes, Process fees, | |
| Printing Charges, Security for costs and | |
other procedure after admission etc. In view of provisions under chapter VII |
|
| Rule 6(1) (e), immediately after the expiry | |
| of theperiodprescribed under the forgoing |
sub-rule of this rule for taking the requisite steps for the issue of fresh notice or for supplying postal stamps to cover the postal and registration charges, the of fi ce shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which steps have not been taken for the issue fresh notices or the postal stamps to cover the postal and registration charges have not been supplied within the prescribed time, and the Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute.
As such, the prescribed time to take steps against unserved Respondent No.1 as provided under Rules 1960 has been expired. 02 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take steps against unserved Respondent No.1.
In turn, 02 (two) weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved Respondent No.1 without fail. On failure, Civil Revision Application would stand dismissed against unserved Respondent No.1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. sd/Registrar (Judl. - II) dsm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute due to failure to serve Respondent No.1?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.R. AGRAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
16 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
