Bombay High Court

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED, MUMBAIversusSANJITKUMAR RAVINDRANATH SINGH AND ANR.

Decided: 16 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Holding

The Court held that, although the statutory rule permits dismissal for failure to prosecute, it may, in the interest of justice, grant a further limited period to enable service before dismissing the application.

Summary

The applicant filed an interim application seeking directions to serve notices on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, whose addresses were unknown and the earlier notices had been returned unserved. The Registrar listed the matter three times and directed the applicant’s counsel to provide correct addresses and take steps for service, but no action was taken. The Court examined Chapter VII Rule 6 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which mandates dismissal of a matter if steps for fresh notice or payment of postage are not taken within the prescribed period. Since the applicant failed to comply within the four‑week period granted, the Court considered whether to dismiss the application outright. Instead of immediate dismissal, the Court exercised its discretion to grant a further two‑week period to effect service, warning that failure to do so will result in dismissal of the interim application. The order thus extends the time for service and conditions future dismissal on non‑compliance.

Issues considered

Whether the Registrar should dismiss the interim application for failure to prosecute due to non‑service of notices on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Whether the Court may extend time despite the statutory provision for dismissal under Chapter VII Rule 6(1)(e).

Subjects

service of notice
procedural law
Bombay High Court Rules
dismissal for failure to prosecute
interim application

Judgment

                        FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                         Interim Application No. 4245 of 2021
                                          in
                            First Appeal No. 639 of 2021.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,              Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearance, Court’s orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders
      CORAM : S. R. AGRAWAL
                   REGISTRAR (JUDL.II)
         Date : 28/02/2024.
      None present

     It appears from the record that, the notices
issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 returned
unserved. Thereafter, the matter is listed on the
board of Registrar for three times. The learned
advocate for the applicant was directed to
supply proper and correct address and take
appropriate steps for service of notices upon
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, the learned
advocate for the applicant has neither taken
steps nor supplied proper and correct address
of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

       Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub
rule 1 & 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 foregoing 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 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
against unserved Respondent nos. 1 and 2
provided under Rules 1960 has been expired.
04 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The
matter is lying ideally without any progress due
to not taken any steps. In these circumstances,
instead of passing order of dismissal outrightly,
it would be just and proper to give one
opportunity to take steps against unserved
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

      In turn, two weeks time is granted with
directions to take steps against unserved
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without fail. On
failure, Interim Application will 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)-28.02.2024

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…