Mrs. Sadhana Maruti Dabade and Ors. vs Union of India through the General Manager,Central Railway — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mrs. Sadhana Maruti Dabade and Ors. vs Union of India through the General Manager,Central Railway — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One final opportunity of two weeks granted to the applicant's advocate to take steps for service of notice upon the unserved sole respondent; on failure, the Interim Application to stand dismissed against the unserved sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should be dismissed outright for the applicant's failure to take steps for service of notice upon the unserved sole respondent, or whether one further opportunity should be granted.

Court's answer

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outright for failure to prosecute, the Registrar considered it just and proper to give one opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon the unserved sole respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon the unserved sole respondent within two weeks without fail.

Key takeaways

On failure to take the steps, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against the unserved sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Registrar (Judl-II), Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Interim Application No. 11056 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 8812 of 2024 — Service of notice — RPAD notices issued to sole respondent on 27/11/2024 and 04/07/2025 not returned by Postal authority — despite direction dated 17/10/2025 and earlier grant of two weeks, applicant's advocate neither took steps for service nor supplied correct address — under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar may dismiss matters for failure to prosecute — instead of outright dismissal, one last opportunity of two weeks granted to take steps for service of notice upon the unserved sole respondent — on failure, the Interim Application to stand dismissed against the unserved sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11056 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 8812 OF 2024

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

DATE : 18/11/2025

None Present

It appears from the record that notices were issued to sole respondent on 27/11/2024 and 04/07/2025 by RPAD. But those notices are not returned the Postal authority. Therefore, on 17/10/2025 the learned advocate for applicant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice. Thereafter, the above numbered First Appeal is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved sole respondent. However, the learned advocate for applicant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of sole respondent.

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 prosecute.:

As such, the prescribed time to take steps for service of notice upon unserved sole respondent 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 opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved sole respondent.

In turn, learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved sole respondent within two weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved sole respondent without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-20.11.2025

Sd/-