Jawaher Singh S/O. Shri. Ramnath v. Union Of India Thr. Its. Secretary And ANR.

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1544 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 33230 OF 2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : 12/03/2025 Adv. Neelam Yadav i/by Adv. Raju Gupta present for Applicant.

Adv. Aakash Agrawal i/by Trilegal present for respondent no. 2 It appears from the record that notices were issued to respondent no. 1 On 24/07/2024 and 13/11/2024 by RPAD. But those notices are not returned by the Postal authority. Therefore, on 14/02/2025 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 notices 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 notices 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)-12.03.2025