Bombay High Court
AZIZ T. DOHADWALAversusMRS.N.V.KADAM AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Compromised/Consent Terms
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The CRA is dismissed in its entirety for non‑prosecution, and any interim order stands vacated.
Summary
The High Court, on 22 August 2017, dealt with a civil revision application where the applicant, Aziz T. Dohadwala, had been ordered on 9 April 2013 to serve several respondents within three weeks or face dismissal of the criminal revision application (CRA) for non‑prosecution. The Registry endorsed that no steps were taken, leading to dismissal of the CRA against the respondents. The original applicant died in 2014, and the court allowed adjournments for his legal representatives to appear, the last being on 5 June 2017. On the present hearing, the court found that still no steps had been taken and therefore dismissed the CRA in its entirety, vacating any interim order, while noting that the legal representatives could seek restoration through appropriate proceedings. The order reflects the court’s strict adherence to procedural deadlines and the principle that failure to prosecute leads to dismissal.
Issues considered
- Whether the CRA should be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to failure to serve the respondents within the stipulated time
- Whether the death of the original applicant affects the dismissal of the CRA
- Whether the legal representatives of the deceased applicant may seek restoration of the dismissed CRA
Subjects
- civil procedure
- criminal revision application
- non‑prosecution
- dismissal
- legal representatives
- restoration
Judgment
skc 901-CRA-394-09.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2009
Aziz T. Dohadwala .. Applicant
vs.
Mrs. N. V. Kadam & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. P. Sharma i/b. Khandeparkar & Associates for Applicant.
Mr. Durgesh Kulkarni i/b. Lex Firmus for Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 22 AUGUST 2017
P.C :
1] By order dated 9th April 2013, the applicant was directed to
serve respondent nos. 1, 2, 1A, 1B and 1D within three weeks
failing which the CRA was to stand dismissed for non prosecution
against the said respondents without any further reference to the
Court.
2] There is an endorsement made by the Registry dated 3 rd May
2013 to the effect that since no steps have been taken, the CRA
stands dismissed as against the aforesaid respondents in terms of
the conditional order dated 9th April 2013.
3] Thereafter, a statement was made that the original applicant
has passed away sometime in the year 2014 and that steps would
be taken to bring on record the legal representatives.
1/2
skc 901-CRA-394-09.doc
4] Adjournments were granted from time to time in order to
enable the legal representatives of the original applicant to come
on record. Last of such order was made on 5th June 2017.
5] Today, when the matter is called out, it is found that till date,
no steps have been taken.
6] Accordingly, the CRA is dismissed in its entirety for non
prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
7] Needless to add, that this will not preclude the legal
representatives of the applicant to file appropriate proceedings
seeking restoration.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
Chandka
2/2
Checking your session…