The Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur and Anr. vs Sharada Namdev Chavan and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur and Anr. vs Sharada Namdev Chavan and Ors. — 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 supply the necessary copies; on failure the Interim Applications to stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices to issue to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Applications ought to be dismissed for non-prosecution for failure to supply copies within the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, or whether a further opportunity should be granted.

Court's answer

The prescribed time to supply copies under the 1960 Rules having expired, and copies not supplied despite two weeks' time granted, the Interim Applications were liable to be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

Ratio / Principle

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outrightly, the Registrar considered it just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

Key takeaways

The learned advocate for the applicant is directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail.ratio¶11
On failure to supply the copies, the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11
If the copies are supplied, notices are to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Registrar Judl.-II, Shri S.R. Agrawal), order dated 15/04/2025 in Interim Application Nos. 1222 and 1223 of 2025 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 2189 of 2025: the applicant's advocate failed to supply copies for issuing notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 despite two weeks' time already granted, rendering the applications liable to dismissal for non-prosecution under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Instead of dismissing outrightly, the Registrar granted one final opportunity of two weeks to supply the copies, failing which the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices are to issue to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable by ten weeks.

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1222 OF 2025 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1223 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 2189 OF 2025

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 : 15/04/2025

None Present

The above numbered Interim Applications are 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.

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.

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 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.

In turn, the learned advocate for the applicant is directed to supply necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail. On failure, the Interim Applications 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.

Sd/-

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-15.04.2025