Disposed¶10

Mrs. Arti Fateram Pant and Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager

Bombay HC11 Jul 2025FA/1308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No. 1308 of 2025; Bombay High Court; Registrar (Judl-II) S.R. Agrawal; order dated 22/09/2025; Chapter VII Rule 2 (iii) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; dismissal for non-prosecution; default in payment of process fees; failure to supply copies; last opportunity of 02 weeks; conditional dismissal against sole respondent; notice returnable by ten weeks; none present.

What did the court decide?

Final opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the learned advocate for the appellant to supply the necessary copies; on failure the First Appeal would stand dismissed against the sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notice to issue to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks. ¶10

Mrs. Arti Fateram Pant and Ors. vs Union of India through the General Manager — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution owing to default in payment of process fees and failure to supply copies within the prescribed time.

¶8

Court's answer

Where process fees have not been paid and/or copies have not been supplied within the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar shall dismiss such matters for failure to prosecute.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Although the prescribed time had expired and the matter lay idle without any steps, it was considered just and proper to grant one more opportunity rather than pass an order of dismissal outright.

¶9

Key takeaways

The learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail.ratio¶10
On failure to supply the copies, the First Appeal would stand dismissed against the sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶10
If copies are supplied, notice is to be issued to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) — FIRST APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2025 — Order dated 22/09/2025 by Shri S.R. Agrawal, Registrar (Judl-II). The appeal, listed for the second time on the Registrar's Board for supply of copies, had seen an earlier two-week period lapse without the appellant's Advocate supplying copies for issuance of Notice to the sole respondent. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for non-prosecution on default in payment of process fees and failure to supply copies), the Registrar declined to dismiss the appeal outright and granted one final opportunity: the learned advocate for the appellant was directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail, failing which the First Appeal would stand dismissed against the sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar; upon supply of copies, notice was to issue to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks. Administrative order only — no substantive adjudication.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. 4 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2025

¶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 : 22/09/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The above numbered First Appeal is listed for second time on the Board of Registrar for supplying copies. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, the Advocate for the Appellant has not supplied copies for issuing Notice to sole respondent.

¶8

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 matters to be dismissed for non-prosecution in case of default of payment of process fess and failure to supply copies – Immediately after the expiry of the time prescribed in the foregoing sub-rules of this rule for the supply of copies, the Office shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which the process fees have not been paid and/or the copies have not been supplied within the prescribed time, and the Registrar shall dismiss all such matters for failure to prosecute.

¶9

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies, 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 as learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

¶10

In turn, the learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, the First Appeal would stand dismissed against sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, issue notice to sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.

¶11

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶12

sat-R(J-II)-22.09.2025

Mrs. Arti Fateram Pant and Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Arti Fateram Pant and Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager

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

Pushpa Hanmant Pawar vs Sou Kamal Popat Jagtap and Ors.

Mr. Uday Narayan Borawke vs M/S. Borawake Theatres Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Employees State Insurance Corporation (through the Assistant Director), Pune vs M/S. Hotel Apsara Boarding and Lodging, Miraj

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Manager vs Bharti Ajay Yeole and Ors.

Yadav Balu Patil and Anr. vs Yashwant Balu Patil and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Kolhapur vs Shri. Uday Indrajit Misal and Ors.