Kamlesh Santlal Yadav v. Sagar Bhavesh Modi And ANR.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9520 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 11486 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 : 05/05/2025 None Present It appears from the record that notices were issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 04/09/2024 and 04/01/2025 with reminder through the concerned Hon'ble Principal District Judge. But those notices are not returned from the concerned court.
Therefore, on 21/04/2025 the learned advocate for applicant 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 nos. 1 and 2. However, the learned advocate for applicant has neither taken any steps nor supplied proper and correct addresses of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
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 nos. 1 and 2 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 notices upon unserved respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In turn, learned advocate for the applicant is directed to take appropriate steps for service of notices upon unserved respondent nos. 1 and 2 within two weeks (excluding summer vacation) without fail. On failure, Interim Application would stand dismissed against unserved respondent nos. 1 and 2 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.
Sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) sat-R(J-II)-05.05.2025