Disposed¶7

Kranti Vishnu Toraskar and Ors. v. Ashok Shanakar Torskar and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2025CRA/644/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Civil Revision Application No. 644 of 2024; Registrar (Judl.-II) S.R. Agrawal; order dated 11 June 2025; failure to prosecute; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; processes, process fees, printing charges; steps for issue of fresh notice; postal stamps; unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; two weeks' time; conditional dismissal without further reference.

What did the court decide?

One further opportunity of two weeks granted to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without fail; failing which the Civil Revision Application shall stand dismissed against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without further reference to the Registrar. ¶7

Kranti Vishnu Toraskar and Ors. vs Ashok Shanakar Torskar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute for want of steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, or whether one further opportunity should be given to take steps.

¶6

Court's answer

The prescribed time under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for taking steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had expired.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e), where the requisite steps for issue of fresh notice or supply of postal stamps are not taken within the prescribed time, the office places the matter before the Registrar and the Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute.

¶5

Key takeaways

Instead of dismissing the matter outrightly, one further opportunity of two weeks is granted to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without fail; on failure, the Civil Revision Application shall stand dismissed against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without further reference to the Court/Registrar.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Procedural order on the Registrar's board (second listing) — Civil Revision Application No. 644 of 2024 was listed before the Registrar (Judl.-II), S.R. Agrawal, for the second time; although two weeks had earlier been granted, the Applicant's advocate took no steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Referring to Chapter VII Rule 6, Sub-rules (1) and (2), and Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 — under which matters in which steps are not taken within the prescribed time shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute — the Registrar found the prescribed time expired but declined to dismiss outrightly. One final opportunity of two weeks was granted to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; on failure, the Application shall stand dismissed against them without further reference to the Court/Registrar. Order dated 11 June 2025.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.644 OF 2024

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders	Court’s or Judge’s orders
CORAM :S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL.-II) DATE : 11^thJune, 2025
None present.
The above numbered Civil Revision
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
hasnot taken any steps against unserved Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 . 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.1 to 3 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.1 to 3.

¶7

In turn, 02 (two) weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved Respondent Nos.1 to 3 without fail. On failure, Civil Revision Application

¶8

would stand	dismi	ssed	against unserved
Respondent	Nos.1	to	3 without further
reference to dsm	the Cou	rt of Re	Registrar. sd/- gistrar (Judl. - II)

Kranti Vishnu Toraskar and Ors. v. Ashok Shanakar Torskar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kranti Vishnu Toraskar and Ors. v. Ashok Shanakar Torskar and Ors.

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haijyotsingh Guljarsingh Bhullar vs Sultanpure Textiles Mills Thr Its Proprietor and Ors.

Vinod Haribhau Shelar and Ors. vs Sonabai Kondiba Sanas and Ors.

M/S. Mehta and Co. Thr. Its Partner Mr. Adarsh Varma vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. the Municipal Commissioner and Another

Vithoba Kondaji Minde Deceased vs Deoram Savlaram Minde Deceased

Rajendra Netaji Palkar and Ors. vs Parvatibai Dadarao Sarvade and Ors.

Sachin @ Raghu Baburao Kolekar vs State of Maharashtra