Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tahira Begum Mohammed Kasam Hasmi and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tahira Begum Mohammed Kasam Hasmi and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One further opportunity granted: the learned advocate for the applicant directed to supply necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail; on failure the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 11 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 11 to issue returnable by ten weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application, listed twice on the Registrar's Board for supply of copies and lying without progress, should be dismissed for non-prosecution under Chapter VII Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, or whether a further opportunity should be given to supply the copies.

Ratio / Principle

Dismissal for non-prosecution was deferred: instead of dismissing the Interim Application outrightly for failure to supply copies, the Registrar deemed it just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

Key takeaways

Conditional automatic dismissal: if the Applicant's advocate fails to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 11 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶10
Upon supply of the copies, notices are to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 11, returnable by ten weeks.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Registrar (Judl-II) Shri S.R. Agrawal, order dated 19/09/2025 in Interim Application No. 9027 of 2025 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 18808 of 2025: the Interim Application, listed a second time on the Registrar's Board for supplying copies needed for issuing notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 11, showed no progress despite an earlier two-week period, the prescribed time under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 having expired. Invoking Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the 1960 Rules (dismissal for default in payment of process fees and/or failure to supply copies), the Registrar nonetheless declined to pass an order of dismissal outrightly and gave one more opportunity: copies to be supplied within 02 weeks without fail, failing which the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 11 without further reference to the Court of Registrar; if copies are supplied, notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 11 are to issue returnable by ten weeks.

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. 4 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9027 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 18808 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 : 19/09/2025

None Present

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 Notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 11.

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, Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 11 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, issue notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 11, returnable by ten weeks.

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

sat-R(J-II)-19.09.2025