Shri Satu Biru Dhangar (Deceased) through Is Lrs. 1.1)APPASO Satu Dhangar to 1.3 vs State of Maharashtra through) Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.6, Kolhapur

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2024 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2024

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶4

CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶5

DATE : 03/10/2024

¶6

Adv. Nikita Kamble i/by Adv. S.M. Kamble present for the Appellant

¶7

The notices issued to respondent Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F are returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered First Appeal alongwith Interim Application is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps against unserved respondent Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F. However, the learned advocate for the applicant has neither taken steps nor supplied proper and correct addresses of respondent Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F.

¶8

Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub rule 1 & 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.

¶9

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e), Immediately after the expiry of the period prescribed under the foregoing sub-rule of this rule for

¶10

taking the requisite steps for the issue of fresh notice or or supplying postal stamps to cover the postal and registration charges, the office shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which steps have not been taken for the issue of 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.:

¶11

As such, the prescribed time to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F as provided under Rule 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 Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F.

¶12

In turn, two weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F without fail. On failure, the First Appeal alongwith Interim Application and Interim Application (ST) would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 5, 13 to 16, 18E and 18F without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶13

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

sat-R(J-II)-03.10.2024

¶16

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶17

FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2024 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2024 IN

¶18

FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2024

¶19

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶20

CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL

¶21

REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶22

DATE : 03/10/2024

¶23

Adv. Nikita Kamble i/by Adv. S.M. Kamble present for the Appellant

¶24

As per Bailiff’s Report dated 02/03/2024 & 06/03/2024, Notices of Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d are returned unserved with remark “expired“

¶25

The above numbered First Appeal alongwith Interim Application is listed for second time on the board of Registrar for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d on record. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken any steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d on record.

¶26

Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub rule 1 & 2 of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules,

¶27

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.

¶28

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (2), in cases where 90 days have elapsed from the reported death of any of the parties to the appeal and no action has been taken by the Appellant to bring the heirs of the deceased party on record the matter shall be placed before the Registrar for orders regarding the abatement of the appeal as against the deceased party as soon as possible.

¶29

As such, the prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d 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 abatement outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d, if any .

¶30

In turn, two weeks time is granted with direction to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d, if any on record. On failure, the Proceeding would stand abated against deceased Respondent Nos. 3, 6,18/B, 37/a and 37/d without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶31

The notice issued to respondent No.1 by RPAD is returned without signature on the acknowledgement for respondent No. 1. Hence, re-issue Notice to respondent No. 1 by RPAD, returnable by 10 weeks.

¶32

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶33

sat-R(J-II)-03.10.2024

Shri Satu Biru Dhangar (Deceased) through Is Lrs. 1.1)APPASO Satu Dhangar to 1.3 v. State of Maharashtra through) Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.6, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Satu Biru Dhangar (Deceased) through Is Lrs. 1.1)APPASO Satu Dhangar to 1.3 v. State of Maharashtra through) Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.6, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aakash Suryabhan Ingale Vs Alka Aakash Ingale

Nagu Shamrao Sakat vs Shankar Malku Annareddy

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited Thr. Exe. Engineer Ehv Projects Division vs Atmaram Aanaji Palav

Shri Murlidhar Abaso Lakade vs Smt Indubai Shankar Ghongade

Mr. Haresh Murji Patel vs Mr. Lalit Premji Patel and Another

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. Its Divisional Manager,Kolhapur vs Shri. Santosh Vasantrao Surve and Ors.