Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6037
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ABHAY AHUJA, J
Goenka Diamond and Jewels Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
N.R. International – Respondent
Commercial Summary Suit No. 134 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Seema Sharma
For the Respondents: None
The court emphasizes the importance of timely service under Rule 87, leading to dismissal for non-compliance.
Headnote:This judgment concerns Commercial Summary Suit No. 134 of 2018 where plaintiff has not properly served the defendant since 2018, violating Rule 87 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The court found no good cause shown for the delay. Hence, the court ordered dismissal of the suit for lack of service within the stipulated time frame. The ruling reflects adherence to procedural timelines for suit dismissal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court seeks clarity on plaintiff's instructions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-service of summons leads to case for dismissal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. emphasis on adherence to procedural rules. (Para 6) |
| 4. final ruling of dismissal based on procedural non-compliance. (Para 7) |
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 13 AUGUST 2025 P.C. :
1. This matter was kept back in the morning session, as Ms. Sharma, learned Counsel, appearing for the Plaintiff had sought time to take instructions for withdrawal.
2. However, when the matter is called out in the afternoon session, Ms. Sharma submits that she has no instructions to withdraw the suit.
3. This matter as can be seen has been listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. This is because on 16th July 2025, the following order was passed :
“1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Qureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that service of the writ of summons has been effected as the packet has been returned with the remark ‘unclaimed’.
2. The learned Associate of this Court draws attention of this Court to the remark of the Associate dated 5th January 2019 which states that the Defendant is unserved.
3. Although the Affidavit of service dated 20th December 2018 of the Bailiff states that packet has been returned on 2nd April 2018 with the remark unclaimed, nowhere on the packet it can be seen that the packet is returned unclaimed. In fact the endorsement of the then Associate on 5th January 2019 with respect to the service report clearly indicates that the Defendant is unserved.
4. The writ of summons having been unserved since 2018, list the Suit for dismissal on 13th August
2025.”
4. As can be seen, it has been recorded in paragraph 3 of the said order that although the Affidavit of service dated 20th December 2018 of the Bailiff states that the packet has been returned on 2nd April 2018 with the remark ‘unclaimed’, nowhere on the packet it can be seen that the packet is returned unclaimed. That the endorsement of the then Associate on 5th January 2019 with respect to the service report clearly indicates that the Defendant is unserved.
5. Since it can be seen from the proceedings and the orders passed by this Court from time to time that time has been sought and obtained on one pretext or the other and clearly as can be seen the service of writ of summons has not been effected and remains unserved since 2018, accordingly, the matter was directed on 16th July 2025 to be listed for dismissal.
6. Under Rule 87 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, it is clearly provided that if the writ of summon is not served within a period of three months from the date of filing of the Plaint, the Prothonotary & Senior Master shall unless a good cause is shown, place the suit for dismissal. The rule of three months was substituted for the words six months by notification dated 24th March 2022. Even if one was to take a period of six months in the case of the present suit which is of the year 2018, even then the writ of summons has not been served for a period of six months. No good cause has been shown for not dismissing the Suit.
7. Accordingly, the Suit is dismissed.
