Disposed¶17

L and T Finance Ltd. v. Sanjay Ishawarlal Thakkar and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026IA/8259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Failure to prosecute; unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7; steps for fresh notice and postal stamps not taken; Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; Registrar (Judl.-II) Dr. M. S. Deshpande; Interim Application No. 8259 of 2025 in Civil Revision Application Stamp No. 34197 of 2024; Nashik District; final two weeks' opportunity; automatic dismissal on failure without further reference to Registrar.

What did the court decide?

One further opportunity: two weeks' time granted with directions to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 without fail; on failure, the Interim Application in the Civil Revision Application would stand dismissed against those respondents without further reference to the Court of Registrar. ¶17

L and T Finance Ltd. vs Sanjay Ishawarlal Thakkar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application, listed a second time before the Registrar with steps still not taken against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 despite two weeks' prior time, should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, or be given a further opportunity to take steps.

¶16

Court's answer

Under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, immediately after expiry of the prescribed period for taking requisite steps (issue of fresh notice or supply of postal stamps), the office shall place before the Registrar all matters in which such steps have not been taken.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Registrar shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute where the requisite steps have not been taken within the prescribed time.

¶15

Key takeaways

The prescribed time to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 under the Rules of 1960 had expired, and the two weeks previously granted had produced no steps.ratio¶16
Instead of dismissing the matter outrightly for failure to prosecute, the Registrar considered it just and proper to give one further opportunity to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7.ratio¶16
Two weeks' time was granted with directions to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 without fail; on failure, the Interim Application in the Civil Revision Application would stand dismissed against those respondents without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Appellate Side (District: Nashik) — Order of Dr. M. S. Deshpande, Registrar (Judl.-II), dated 23 March 2026, on Interim Application No. 8259 of 2025 in Civil Revision Application Stamp No. 34197 of 2024. The Application, listed before the Registrar for the second time, showed no steps taken against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 despite two weeks' time earlier granted. Referring to Chapter VII Rule 6(1) and (2), and specifically Rule 6(1)(e), of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar noted that on expiry of the prescribed period for issuing fresh notices or supplying postal stamps, the office must place such matters before the Registrar, who shall dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute. Declining to dismiss outrightly, the Registrar granted one final opportunity of two weeks to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7, directing that on failure the Interim Application would stand dismissed against those respondents without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶1

[Spl. --H.C.A.S.C.D. 79c

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

District : NASHIK

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8259 OF 2025 IN

¶7

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 34197 OF 2024

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶9

CORAM :- DR. M. S. DESHPANDE REGISTRAR (JUDL.-II)

¶10

DATE : 23^rd March 2026

¶11

Advocate for Applicant present.

¶12

The above numbered Interim Application in Civil Revision Application is listed on board of Registrar for second time. Already two weeks time has been granted, however, despite granting two weeks time, Advocate for the Applicant has not taken any steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7.

¶13

Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub rule 1 and 2 of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short “Rules”) may be conveniently made. It states about Processes, Process fees, Printing Charges, Security for costs and other procedure after admission etc.

¶14

In view of provisions under chapter VII Rule 6(1) (e), immediately after the expiry of the period

¶15

prescribed under the forgoing sub-rule of this rule for taking the requisite steps for the issue of fresh notice or for 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 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.

¶16

As such, the prescribed time to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 as provided under Rules 1960 has been expired. Earlier two (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 opportunity to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7.

¶17

In turn, two (02) weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 without fail. On failure, Interim Application in Civil Revision Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶18

sd/-

¶19

umk Registrar (Judl.-II)

L and T Finance Ltd. v. Sanjay Ishawarlal Thakkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L and T Finance Ltd. v. Sanjay Ishawarlal Thakkar 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

Anil S/O Sakharam Bonde and Others vs Arun S/O Dattatray Bonde

Kavdu Pandurang Nikhade vs the Honble Revenue Minister, Maharashtra State Government, Mumbai and Others

Buda S/O. Sanu Bethekar and Another vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Govinda S/O. Ganpat Bunde vs Sanjay S/O. Punaji Farkade and Another

Shri Vitthal Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Sawargaon, Narkhed, Thr. President and Another vs Pitambar Narayan Gaidhane and Another

Tarendra Purshottam Shejpal vs Santosh Shantayya Chenmenwar and Others