Disposed¶10

Shri. Savleram Appa Pansare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2025IA/11465/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar order; non-prosecution; failure to supply copies; default in payment of process fees; Chapter VII Rule 2(iii) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; dismissal for failure to prosecute; last opportunity; automatic-dismissal clause; notices returnable by ten weeks; Interim Application No. 11465 of 2025; First Appeal (Stamp) No. 7015 of 2016; Bombay High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity granted: the Applicant's advocate directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks; failing which the Interim Application stands dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices issue to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks. ¶10

Shri. Savleram Appa Pansare vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute (default in payment of process fees / failure to supply copies within the prescribed time under Chapter VII Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960) or be given a further opportunity to supply the copies.

¶9

Court's answer

The two weeks' time earlier granted went unutilised: the matter lies without any progress as the Applicant's advocate has taken no steps, and the prescribed time to supply copies under the 1960 Rules has expired.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Although the Registrar could dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute under Chapter VII Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, instead of passing an order of dismissal outrightly, one more opportunity was found just and proper for supplying the necessary copies.

¶9

Key takeaways

Operative direction: on failure to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks, the Interim Application will stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶10
If the copies are supplied, notices will be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Registrar (Judl-II) order dated 10/11/2025 on Interim Application No. 11465 of 2025 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 7015 of 2016 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction). Listed a second time for supplying copies, with two weeks earlier granted but unutilised, the Application attracted Chapter VII Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (matters with unpaid process fees and/or unsupplied copies beyond prescribed time are to be dismissed by the Registrar for failure to prosecute). Instead of dismissing outrightly, one last opportunity was given: copies to be supplied within 02 weeks, failing which the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Registrar; if supplied, notices would issue to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. 9 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11465 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 7015 OF 2016

¶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 : 10/11/2025

¶5

None Present

¶6

The above numbered Interim Application 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 Applicant has not supplied copies for issuing Notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶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

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies, as provided under Rules,1960 has been expired. 02

¶9

weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress as learned Advocate for the Applicant 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 applicant is directed to supply necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, issue notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks.

¶11

Sd/-

¶12

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-10.11.2025

Shri. Savleram Appa Pansare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Savleram Appa Pansare v. the State of Maharashtra 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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Prabha Sarkar and Anr.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Tp Hub vs Mr. Sandesh Madhukar Achrekar and Ors.

Rupesh Maruti Mandavkar vs M/S. Vaishnaviraj Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Raigad and Anr.

Pallavi Shailesh Kulkarni vs Shailesh Vijay Kulkarni

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Surekha Gajanan Sonawane and Ors.

Sharp Busineesh Systems India Ltd. vs Pankaj Arvind Nadgauda