Bombay High Court
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAIversusSUNIL JUGALKISHORE ANANDPARA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed for non-complying conditional Order
Holding
The Registrar granted a further two‑week period to serve the unserved sole respondent, with dismissal to follow if the steps are not taken.
Summary
The appellant filed an appeal against a sole respondent who had not been served. The Registrar noted that the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 require steps to be taken to issue fresh notices or provide postal stamps within a prescribed period, failing which the matter may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Although two weeks had already been granted, the appellant’s counsel did not act, and the deadline expired. Rather than dismissing the appeal outright, the Registrar exercised discretion to grant a further two‑week period to serve the unserved respondent. The order directs that if the steps are not taken within this additional period, the appeal will be dismissed without further reference to the Registrar.
Issues considered
- What procedural steps are required under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 before an appeal can be dismissed for failure to prosecute?
- Whether the Registrar may extend time to the appellant to serve an unserved sole respondent before dismissing the appeal.
Subjects
- Procedural law
- Bombay High Court Rules
- Failure to prosecute
- Dismissal of appeal
- Service of notice
- Registrar discretion
Judgment
111Spl. --H.C.A.S.C.D. 79c
2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
District : MUMBAI
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 82 OF 2025
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Court’s or Judge’s orders
Registrar’s orders
CORAM :- S.R. AGRAWAL
REGISTRAR (JUDL.-II)
DATE :- 13th January, 2026.
None present.
The above numbered Appeal from order 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 sole Respondent.
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.
In view of provisions under chapter VII Rule
6(1) (e), immediately after the expiry of the
period 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.
As such, the prescribed time to take steps
against unserved sole respondent as provided
under Rules 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 against unserved sole Respondent.
In turn, 02 (two) weeks time is granted
with directions to take steps against unserved
sole Respondent without fail. On failure,
Appeal from order would stand dismissed
against unserved sole Respondent without
further reference to the court of Registrar.
sd/-
umk Registrar (Judl.-II)
Checking your session…