Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Mumbai Thr. Divisional Manager,Pune v. Dattu Somnath Madane

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Interim Application No. 15907 of 2023 a/w Interim Application No. 15909 of 2023 in First Appeal (st) No. 25316 of 2023.

Ofoce Notes, Ofoce Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL.II) Date : 29/02/2024.

Adv. Manjeet Lotankar i/by Adv. D. D.

Rananaware present for Applicant.

It appears from the record that, the notice issued to sole respondent returned unserved.

Thereafter, the matter is listed on the board of Registrar for three times. The learned advocate for the appellant was directed to supply proper and correct address and take appropriate steps for service of notice upon sole respondent. However, the learned advocate for the applicant has neither taken steps nor supplied proper and correct address of sole respondent.

Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub rule 1 & 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. In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e), 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 for supplying postal stamps to cover the postal and registration

charges, the ofoce 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 against unserved Sole Respondent provided under Rules 1960 has been expired. 04 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to not taken any steps. In these circumstances, instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take steps against unserved sole respondent.

In turn, two weeks time is granted with directions to take steps against unserved sole respondent without fail. On failure, both interim applications will stand dismissed against unserved sole respondent, without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

Sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) sat-R(J-II)-26.02.2024