Disposed

Smt.Rekha Rajesh Dubey and Ors. v. Mr. Giriraj Kumar Mehta and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2024FA/674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar's order on a first appeal where notice to respondent No. 4 was unserved and respondent No. 3 had died with no steps taken to bring legal representatives on record. Citing Chapter VII Rule 6 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar granted a final two-week opportunity; failing which the appeal would stand dismissed against respondent No. 4 and abated against resp

What did the court decide?

Final two weeks granted to serve respondent No. 4 and bring legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 on record; failing which dismissal/abatement follows automatically.

Smt.Rekha Rajesh Dubey and Ors. vs Mr. Giriraj… — 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. 674 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

¶5

REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶6

DATE : 22/08/2024

¶7

Adv. Dhanlaxmi i/by Adv. A.M. Gokhale present for the Appellant

¶8

The notice issued to respondent No. 4 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered First Appeal is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps against unserved respondent No. 4 However, the learned advocate for the appellant has neither taken steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 4.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 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

¶11

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.:

¶12

As such, the prescribed time to take steps against unserved respondent No. 4 as provided under Rule 1960 has been expired. 03 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. 4.

¶13

In turn, two weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved respondent No. 4 without fail. On failure, the First Appeal would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶16

sat-R(J-II)-22.08.2024

¶17

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

¶18

FIRST APPEAL NO. 674 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 REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶21

DATE : 22/08/2024

¶22

Adv. Dhanlaxmi i/by Adv. A.M. Gokhale present for the Appellant

¶23

As per Bailiff’s Report dated 25/06/2024, Notice of respondent No. 3 is returned unserved with remark “expired“

¶24

The above numbered First Appeal is listed for second time on the board of Registrar for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 on record. Already 03 weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting 03 weeks time, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken any steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 on record.

¶25

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.

¶26

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (2), in cases where 90 days have elapsed from the

¶27

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.

¶28

As such, the prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 as provided under Rules 1960 has been expired. 03 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 No. 3, if any .

¶29

In turn, two weeks time is granted with direction to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3, if any on record. On failure, the Proceeding would stand abated against deceased respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶30

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶31

sat-R(J-II)-22.08.2024

Smt.Rekha Rajesh Dubey and Ors. v. Mr. Giriraj Kumar Mehta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rekha Rajesh Dubey and Ors. v. Mr. Giriraj Kumar Mehta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Dattatray Rajaram Bathe vs State of Maharashtraj through Its Secretary, Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Hemraj Ambalal Singhvi vs State of Maha. Thr. Ministry of Coop. Affairs and Ors.

Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Radha Dilip Parekh and Another Vs Ms Shah Traders through Its Partner Mr Siddharth Parekh

Samiulla Abdul Razak Patel Died Thr Lrs Ajimulla and Ors. Vs Najmunbee Miya Patel Died Arefa Died Farat W/O Jafar Shaikh and Ors.

Deepak Kailas Patil Vs Anna Gulab Kamble and Others