Disposed

Mrs. Sultana Salim Inamdar and Ors. v. Mr. Rajendra Laxmansing Rajput and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2024FA/48/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No. 48 of 2024: notice to respondent No. 1 returned unserved and appellant took no steps despite three listings before the Registrar. Under Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted a final three weeks to take service steps, failing which the appeal would be dismissed automatically.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs. Sultana Salim Inamdar and Ors. vs Mr… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2024

¶3

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 : 25/07/2024

¶6

Adv. Shraddha Pawar i/by Adv. N.S. Patil present for the Appellant

¶7

The notice issued to respondent No. 1 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered First Appeal is listed on the board of registrar for three times for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1. However, learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 1.

¶8

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Immediately after the expiry of the period prescribed under the foregoing sub-rule of this rule for 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.:

¶9

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1 as provided under Rule 1960 has been expired. 05 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 more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1.

¶10

In turn, three weeks time is granted with directions to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1 without fail. On failure, First Appeal would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶11

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶12

sat-R(j-II)-25.07.2024

Mrs. Sultana Salim Inamdar and Ors. v. Mr. Rajendra Laxmansing Rajput and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs. Sultana Salim Inamdar and Ors. v. Mr. Rajendra Laxmansing Rajput and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through Its Manager Legal Mr. Priyank Shah Vs Smt. Dipti Nitin Sankpal and Ors.

Yogesh @ Nunya Shashikant Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kum. Shubham Dilip Kamble through Smt. Dipali Kamble on Behalf of Petitioner as a Natural Guardian

Mr. Bhivaji Bhagwat Chopade and Anr. vs Mr. Rajaram Jijaba Nalawade and Ors.

Sou.Kamal Vishnu Shendge vs Shri.Sayyad Dastagir Honmurgi and Ors.

Mr. Bhivaji Bhagwat Chopade and Anr. vs Mr. Rajaram Jijaba Nalawade and Ors.