Uttam Dnyandeo Bhopale vs Smt. Nandabai Sakharam Patil and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Uttam Dnyandeo Bhopale vs Smt. Nandabai Sakharam Patil and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One final opportunity of two weeks granted to the appellant's advocate to supply the necessary copies for issuing notice to respondent Nos. 4 to 6; on failure, the interim applications to stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 without further reference to the Registrar; if copies are supplied, notice returnable date to be extended by ten weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim applications should be dismissed outright for non-prosecution (non-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 whether one further opportunity should be given to supply the necessary copies.

Court's answer

Instead of dismissing the interim applications outrightly for failure to prosecute, the Registrar deemed it just and proper to give one further opportunity: the learned advocate for the appellant was directed to supply the necessary copies within two weeks without fail.

Ratio / Principle

On failure to supply the copies within the said two weeks, the interim applications would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Key takeaways

If the copies are supplied, the notice returnable date is to be extended for ten weeks.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Registrar, Judl.-II, S. R. Agrawal), 04/03/2025 — Interim Applications Nos. 747 and 748 of 2025 in First Appeal (ST) No. 35861 of 2024. Listed a second time for supply of copies; two weeks earlier granted had lapsed without the appellant's advocate supplying copies for issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for non-prosecution where process fees are unpaid and/or copies unsupplied within the prescribed time), the Registrar declined to dismiss outright and granted one last opportunity: copies to be supplied within two weeks without fail, failing which the interim applications would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 without further reference to the Registrar; upon supply of copies, the notice returnable date to be extended by ten weeks.

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 747 OF 2025 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 748 OF 2025

IN

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 35861 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 : 04/03/2025

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 Appellant has not supplied copies for issuing Notice to the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

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 opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to supply necessary copies within two weeks without fail. On failure, the interim applications would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, notice returnable date be extended for ten weeks

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-03.03.2025