Saraswati Popat Sankpal And ORS. v. Rohit Shankarrao Shinde And ORS.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6725 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 29579 OF 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : 11/07/2025 None Present It appears from the record that notice was issued to respondent no. 1 on 31-12-2024 & 12.03.2025 with reminder through the Hon'ble Principal District Judge. But, this notice is not returned from the concerned court. Therefore, on 27.06.
2025 the learned advocate for appellant was directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice. Thereafter, the above numbered Interim application is listed on the board of registrar for second time for taking steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1 However, the learned advocate for appellant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct address of respondent no. 1.
In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (1) (e) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, 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 or 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 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 for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1 as provided under Rule 1960 has been expired. 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 for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1. In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon unserved respondent no. 1 within two weeks without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent no. 1 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.
Sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) sat-R(J-II)-11.07.2025