Disposed¶11

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pratibha Pawan Ram and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2025IA/9411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Registrar (Judl-II) order; Interim Application No. 9411 of 2025 in First Appeal No. 1251 of 2025; dismissal for non-prosecution; failure to supply copies; default in payment of process fees; Chapter VII Rule 2 (iii) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; prescribed time expired; one more opportunity 02 weeks; automatic dismissal against respondent Nos. 1 to 6; notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 returnable by ten weeks; respondent Nos. 2 and 3 minors; none present; order dated 25/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

One further (final) opportunity of 02 weeks granted to the Applicant's advocate to supply copies, with automatic dismissal of the Interim Application against respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on failure; if copies are supplied, notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 returnable by ten weeks. ¶11

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Pratibha Pawan Ram and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application, whose prescribed time (plus a further two weeks) for supplying copies had expired without compliance, should be dismissed for non-prosecution under Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, or whether one more opportunity should be given to the Applicant's advocate to supply copies.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Despite expiry of the prescribed time and the earlier two weeks' grace, the Registrar decided that instead of passing an order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one more opportunity to supply the necessary copies.

¶10

Key takeaways

The learned advocate for the applicant is directed to supply the necessary copies within 02 weeks without fail.ratio¶11
On failure to supply the copies, the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 6 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶11
If copies are supplied, notices are to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6, returnable by ten weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Registrar (Judl.-II), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction - Interim Application No. 9411 of 2025 in First Appeal No. 1251 of 2025 (Coram: Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar (Judl-II); order dated 25/09/2025): Listed a second time on the Registrar's Board solely for supplying copies, the Application showed default - two weeks' time having lapsed without the Applicant's advocate supplying copies needed to issue notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being minors). Referring to Chapter VII, Rule 2 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (dismissal for non-prosecution on default in payment of process fees and/or failure to supply copies within prescribed time), the Registrar nevertheless declined to dismiss outright and granted one last opportunity: copies to be supplied within 02 weeks, failing which the Interim Application would stand dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 6 automatically without further reference to the Registrar; upon supply, notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 returnable by ten weeks. No counsel appeared ('None Present'); no case citation or quantum arises.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. 9 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9411 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2025

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶4

CORAM : SHRI. S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶5

DATE : 25/09/2025

¶6

None Present

¶7

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 and 4 to 6 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor)

¶8

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.

¶9

As such, the prescribed time to supply copies, as

¶10

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.

¶11

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 against respondent Nos. 1 to 6 without further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies supplied, issue notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6, returnable by ten weeks.

¶12

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶13

sat-R(J-II)-25.09.2025

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pratibha Pawan Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pratibha Pawan Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad vs Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors.

Irfan Ibrahim Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Surendra Pandurang Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Adamji Investment Pvt. Ltd. through Rajendra Shinde vs Union Quality Plastics Ltd. and Ors.

Lingappa Somana Bengali vs State of Maharashtra

Vakil Ahmad Sagirhasan Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.