The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division vs Ananta Laxman Thule — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division vs Ananta Laxman Thule — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One final opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the learned advocate for the appellant/applicant to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2; on failure, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the prescribed period for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2 having expired without any action, the Interim Application should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or a further opportunity should be granted.

Court's answer

Instead of passing an 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.

Ratio / Principle

The learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2 within 02 weeks without fail.

Key takeaways

On failure to take the directed steps, the Interim Application will stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 automatically, without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), order dated 22/01/2025 by Shri S. R. Agrawal, Registrar (Judl -II), in Interim Application No. 389 of 2024 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 30792 of 2023. Notice to respondent No. 2, though issued on 19/04/2024 and re-issued on 04/10/2024, remained unreturned, and the applicant had taken no steps nor supplied a correct address despite two weeks' time earlier granted. Referring to Chapter VII, Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (under which matters where requisite steps are not taken within the prescribed time are placed before the Registrar, who may dismiss them for failure to prosecute), the Registrar held that instead of dismissing the Interim Application outrightly it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity. The advocate for the appellant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent No. 2 within 02 weeks without fail, failing which the Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. None was present when the order was passed.

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 389 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 30792 OF 2023

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 : 22/01/2025

None Present

The notice issued to respondent No. 2 on 19/04/2024 and re-issued on 04/10/2024 is yet not returned. Therefore, the above numbered Interim Application is 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 without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent No. 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Sd/-

REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-22.01.2025