Disposed¶11

Smt. Reshma Vijay Jadhav and Ors. v. Mohan Rajaram Kadam and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2025IA/10006/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Procedural order of Registrar (Judl-II), Bombay High Court, dated 22/04/2025, in Interim Application No. 10006 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 28556 of 2023. Keywords: service of notice; unserved respondent; notice returned unserved; failure to prosecute; steps for service; last opportunity; dismissal without further reference; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e); Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; Registrar's board; First Appeal (Stamp).

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of two weeks granted to the applicant's advocate to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1; failing which the Interim Application to stand dismissed against that respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar. ¶11

Smt. Reshma Vijay Jadhav and Ors. vs Mohan Rajaram Kadam and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute owing to non-taking of steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1, or whether one further opportunity should be granted.

¶10

Court's answer

Although the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for taking steps for service had expired and the earlier two weeks' time had produced no steps, the Registrar considered it just and proper to grant one more opportunity instead of dismissing the application outright.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Learned advocate for the Applicant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1 within two weeks without fail.

¶11

Key takeaways

On failure to take the steps within two weeks, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 1 automatically, without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (S. R. Agrawal, Registrar Judicial-II) — Interim Application No. 10006 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 28556 of 2023 — Order dated 22/04/2025 — Service of notice — Notice on respondent No. 1 returned unserved; applicant took no steps despite two weeks' time earlier granted, and the period prescribed under Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 stood expired — Instead of dismissing the application outright for failure to prosecute, the Registrar granted one last opportunity of two weeks to take steps for service; on failure, the Interim Application to stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶1

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

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10006 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 28556 OF 2023

¶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 : 22/04/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

The notice of respondent No. 1 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered Interim Application is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1. However, learned advocate for Applicant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 1.

¶8

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

¶9

prosecute.:

¶10

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1 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. 1.

¶11

In turn, learned advocate for the Applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 1 within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶12

Sd/-

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-22.04.2025

Smt. Reshma Vijay Jadhav and Ors. v. Mohan Rajaram Kadam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reshma Vijay Jadhav and Ors. v. Mohan Rajaram Kadam and Anr.

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

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai Thr.the Director vs M/S. Gufic Biosciences Ltd., Mumbai

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Swati Sitaram Jadhav and Anr.

Employees State Insurance Corporation through Its Regional Director vs M/S. H. R. Associates through Its Parter Shri. Rajwardhan Vittalrao Dikona and Anr.

Shrirangrao Alias Savleram Pandharinath Thube vs Ketan Jayantilal Veera and Anr.

Satyawan Bhagwan Madavi vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Anr.

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mr. Mahendra Rajaram Gautam and Anr.