Disposed¶11

The Executive Engineer, Kolhapur v. Bala Appayya Teli and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2025FA/282/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No. 282 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Registrar (Judl-II) S.R. Agrawal; order dated 03/07/2025; dismissal for non-prosecution; supply of copies; printing charges; process fees; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; Chapter VII Rule 2 (iii); Chapter VII Rule 11 (i) and (ii); last opportunity; two weeks; respondent Nos. 1 and 3; notices returnable by ten weeks; Interim Application.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of two weeks to the appellant's advocate to supply copies for notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and deposit printing charges; on failure the First Appeal and any Interim Application to stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies supplied, notices returnable by ten weeks. ¶11

The Executive Engineer, Kolhapur vs Bala Appayya Teli and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

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

¶7

Court's answer

The prescribed time under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for supply of copies and payment of printing charges had expired, and the two weeks earlier granted went unutilised.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Instead of dismissing the appeal outright for non-prosecution, the Registrar considered it just and proper to give one further opportunity to supply the necessary copies and deposit the cost of printing charges.

¶10

Key takeaways

The learned advocate for the appellant was directed to supply necessary copies for issuing notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and deposit necessary printing charges within 02 weeks without fail.ratio¶11
On failure to comply, the First Appeal along with any Interim Application would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11
If copies were supplied, notices were to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 3, returnable by ten weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction - First Appeal No. 282 of 2025 (order of Registrar Judicial-II, S.R. Agrawal, dated 03/07/2025). The appeal, listed a second time on the Registrar's Board for supply of copies and deposit of printing charges, saw no compliance within the two weeks earlier granted. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) and Chapter VII, Rule 11 (i) and (ii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for non-prosecution on default of process fees/copy supply and printing costs), the Registrar granted one last opportunity of two weeks to supply copies for notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and deposit printing charges, failing which the appeal and any interim application would stand dismissed without further reference; if copies were supplied, notices were to be returnable by ten weeks.

¶1

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

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO. 282 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) DATE : 03/07/2025

¶5

None Present

¶6

The above numbered First Appeal is listed for second time on the Board of Registrar for supplying copies and to deposit cost of printing charges. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, the Advocate for the Appellant has neither supplied copies for issuing Notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 nor deposited printing charges.

¶7

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.

¶8

Likewise, in view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 11 (i) and (ii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate

¶9

Side Rules, 1960 matters to be dismissed for nonprosecution in case of default of payment of the costs of printing – Immediately after the expiry of the time prescribed in the foregoing sub-rules of this rule for the payment of costs of printing charges, the Office shall place before the Registrar all such matters in which the costs of printing charges have not been paid within the prescribed time, and the Registrar shall dismiss all such matters for failure to prosecute.

¶10

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies and payment of printing charges 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 Appellantt has not taken any steps. In such circumstances, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to supply the necessary copies and deposit cost of printing charges.

¶11

In turn, the learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply necessary copies for issuing notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and deposit necessary printing charges within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, the First Appeal alongwith Interim Application, if any would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, notices be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 3, returnable by ten weeks

¶12

Sd/-

¶13

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶14

sat-R(J-II)-03.07.2025

The Executive Engineer, Kolhapur v. Bala Appayya Teli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, Kolhapur v. Bala Appayya Teli 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

Surekha W/O. Baban Thorat and Anr. vs Sugan S/O Amarsingh Rajpurohit and Anr.

The Depot Manager, Msrtc, Gadhinglaj Depot, Kolhapur and Ors. vs Shri. Pandurang Ramchandra Bhogulkar and Anr.

Mr. Pandurang S/O Raghunath Patil vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.,Mumbai Thr. Chief General Manager / North

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its the Divisional Controller, Raigad vs Jayashri Ashok Patil and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Manager vs Sanjay Ramchandra Sonwalkar

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Manager vs Sanjay Ramchandra Sonwalkar