Bombay High Court
WALTER FRANCIS MARTIS AND ANR.versusPOOJEET ENTERPRISES AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed for non-complying conditional Order
Holding
The Court held that although the rule provides for dismissal on non‑prosecution, it may, in the interest of justice, grant a further opportunity to supply the required copies before ordering dismissal.
Summary
The First Appeal No. 416 of 2026 was listed for a second time for the supply of copies required to issue notices to respondents No. 2 and 3. The appellant's counsel failed to provide the copies within the initially granted two‑week period. Under Chapter VII, Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, a matter may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when copies are not supplied. The Court noted the default but, invoking its equitable jurisdiction, chose to give the appellant one more opportunity rather than dismiss outright. The appellant was directed to file the necessary copies within another two weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed against respondents No. 2 and 3. If the copies are filed, the Court will issue notices and set a return date of eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal must be dismissed for default under Rule 2(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 due to failure to supply required copies
- Whether the Court may, in the interest of justice, grant an additional time to supply copies before dismissing the appeal
Subjects
- procedural law
- court rules
- non‑prosecution
- dismissal
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. 5
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order
appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : DR. M. S. DESHPANDE
REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)
DATE : 25/06/2026
None Present
The above numbered First Appeal is listed for
second time on the Board of Registrar for supplying
copies. Already two weeks time was granted. Despite
granting two weeks time, the Advocate for the
Appellant has not supplied copies for issuing Notices
to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 2
(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,
1960 matters to be dismissed for non-prosecution in
case of default of payment of process fess and failure
to supply copies – Immediately after the expiry of the
time prescribed in the foregoing sub-rules of this rule
for the supply of copies, the Office shall place before
the Registrar all such matters in which the process fees
have not been paid and/or the copies have not been
supplied within the prescribed time, and the Registrar
shall dismiss all such matters for failure to prosecute.
As such, the prescribed time to supply copies, as
provided under Rules,1960 has been expired. 02
weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is
lying idle without any progress as learned Advocate for
the Appellant has not taken any steps. However,
instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly, it would
be just and proper to give one more opportunity to
supply the necessary copies.
In turn, the learned advocate for the appellant is
directed to supply necessary copies within 02 weeks
without fail. On failure, the First Appeal would stand
dismissed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without
further reference to the Court of Registrar. If copies are
supplied, issue notices to respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
returnable by eight weeks.
Sd/-
REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)
sat-R(J-II)-25.06.2026
Checking your session…