The New India Assurance Company Thr.Legal Hub vs Bharat Tukaram Nachanekar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The New India Assurance Company Thr.Legal Hub vs Bharat Tukaram Nachanekar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One final opportunity of 02 weeks (excluding summer vacation) granted to the appellant's advocate to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2, with an automatic direction that on failure the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Applications should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the applicant having failed to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2.

Court's answer

Although the prescribed time for taking steps had expired and the matter was liable to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar considered it just and proper not to pass an order of dismissal outrightly and instead to grant one more opportunity to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2.

Ratio / Principle

Learned advocate for the appellant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2 within 02 weeks (excluding summer vacation) without fail; on failure, the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Registrar (Judl-II), Shri S. R. Agrawal — Interim Application Nos. 14018 and 14019 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 25627 of 2024 — Order dated 29/04/2025 — Notice to respondent No. 2 returned unserved; applicant took no steps for service and supplied no proper and correct address despite two weeks earlier granted — Under Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar is empowered to dismiss a matter for failure to prosecute where requisite steps for issuance of fresh notice are not taken — Instead of dismissal outrightly, one more (final) opportunity of two weeks, excluding summer vacation, granted to take steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2 — On failure, the Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 automatically, 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. 14018 OF 2024 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14019 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 25627 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 : 29/04/2025

Adv. Poonam Mittal present for the Applicant

The notice of respondent No. 2 is returned unserved. Therefore, the above numbered Interim Applications are listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2. However, learned advocate for applicant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent No. 2.

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 respondent No. 2 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. 2.

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2 within 02 weeks (excluding summer vacation) without fail. On failure, Interim Applications would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-29.04.2025