Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.the Divisional Controller vs Manoj Ganpat Vitmal — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.the Divisional Controller vs Manoj Ganpat Vitmal — 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 Application is to stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notice to issue to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application should 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 one more opportunity should be granted to supply the copies.

Court's answer

The prescribed time for supplying copies under the 1960 Rules had expired, and the two weeks' time earlier granted had gone in vain.

Ratio / Principle

Instead of passing an order of dismissal outrightly, it would be 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; on failure, the Interim Application would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11
If copies are supplied, notice is to be issued to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Registrar (Judl-II) — Interim Application No. 15361 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 31657 of 2024 (order dated 13/02/2025): The applicant's advocate failed to supply copies for issuance of notice to the sole respondent even after two weeks' time had been granted, although the prescribed period under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 had expired. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the said Rules — under which matters in which process fees are not paid and/or copies are not supplied within the prescribed time shall be dismissed by the Registrar for failure to prosecute — the Registrar nonetheless declined to dismiss outrightly and, as a just and proper course, granted one more opportunity: copies to be supplied within 02 weeks without fail, failing which the Interim Application would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies were supplied, notice to issue to the sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15361 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 31657 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 : 13/02/2025

Adv. Abhijeet Phulsunder i/by Adv. D.D. Rananaware present for the Applicant

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 Notice to sole respondent.

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 Application would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, issue notice to sole respondent, returnable by ten weeks.

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-13.02.2025