Registrar's order in a first appeal where notice to respondent No. 4 returned unserved and the appellant failed to take service steps. Instead of dismissal under the Appellate Side Rules, one final two-week opportunity was granted; failing which the appeal would stand dismissed against respondent No. 4.
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. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)
DATE : 19/12/2024
None present
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 for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4. However, learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 4.
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.:
As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4 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 more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4.
In turn, two weeks time (excluding Christmas Vacation) is granted with directions to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 4 without fail. On failure, First Appeal alongwith Interim Application, if any would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.
Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)
sat-R(J-II)-19.12.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to prosecute after steps for service on unserved respondent No. 4 were not taken within prescribed time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant (unnamed)
Respondent No. 4 (unserved)
S. R. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
14 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
