Disposed¶7

Bhaskar Chandrakant Padman and Others v. Municipal Corporatin of Greater Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC22 Aug 2025AO/503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AFO 503/2024; IA 10227/2024; Bombay High Court; Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Registrar (Judl.-II); H.M. Bhosale; order dated 01/04/2025; failure to prosecute; steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e); Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; dismissal for failure to take steps; last/final opportunity; two weeks' time; procedural order; None Present.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory procedural direction: one final opportunity of two weeks granted to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, failing which the Appeal from Order alongwith the Interim Application would stand dismissed. ¶7

Bhaskar Chandrakant Padman and Others vs Municipal Corporatin of Greater Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appeal from Order and Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the prescribed time under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 having expired without steps being taken against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

¶6

Court's answer

Under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, where the requisite steps for issue of fresh notice or supply of postal stamps are not taken within the prescribed time, the Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The prescribed time to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 under the 1960 Rules had expired, and the two weeks' time earlier granted had been of no avail.

¶6

Key takeaways

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outright, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.ratio¶6
Two weeks' time granted with directions to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 without fail; on failure, the Appeal from Order alongwith the Interim Application would stand dismissed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Appeal from Order No. 503 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 10227 of 2024, before H.M. Bhosale, I/c. Registrar (Judl.-II), order dated 01.04.2025; none present. Despite two weeks' time already granted, the advocate for the Applicant took no steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Referring to Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 — under which, on expiry of the prescribed time for taking such steps, the Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute — the Registrar found the prescribed time expired and, instead of dismissing outright, granted one final opportunity of two weeks to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, directing that on failure the Appeal from Order alongwith the Interim Application would stand dismissed.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.503 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10227 OF 2024

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders CORAM : H.M. BHOSALE I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL. - II) DATE : 01^st April, 2025 None Present. The above numbered Appeal from Order alongwith Interim 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 Nos.3 to 6. 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.

¶5

In view of provisions under Chapter VII Rule 6(1) (e), immediately after the expiry of the period prescribed 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 office 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.

¶6

As such, the prescribed time to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos.3 to 6 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 Nos.3 to 6.

¶7

In turn, 02 (two) weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos.3 to 6 without fail. On failure, Appeal from Order alongwith Interim Application would stand dismissed

¶8

against unserved	Respondent Nos.3 to 6
without further re	ference to the Court of
Registrar.
dsm	sd/- I/c.Registrar (Judl. - II)

Bhaskar Chandrakant Padman and Others v. Municipal Corporatin of Greater Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Chandrakant Padman and Others v. Municipal Corporatin of Greater Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. vs Brh Wealth Kreators and 6 Ors. Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank and Anr. (Resp)

Manish Jhunjhunwala vs Prabhat General Agency and Anr.

Bhaskar Chandrakant Padman and Others vs Municipal Corporatin of Greater Mumbai and Others

Ibrahim Burhansaheb Kokni vs Dulhanbi Malangsaheb Kokni Decd. Thr Her Legal Heirs and Ors.

Shree Siddhivinayak Classic Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. through Its General Manager Shri Dashrat S. Matal

M/S. Crescent Builders and Developers and Anr. vs Lourdes Veronica Baptista and Ors.