The Supreme Court corridors were unusually busy on Tuesday as a long list of civil appeals from Maharashtra came up before the Registrar. File after file was taken up, but the focus quickly narrowed to one recurring issue - whether all respondents had actually been served notice. By the end of the sitting, the Registrar passed a detailed procedural order affecting dozens of connected appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra.
Background
The batch of matters arises from several civil appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, challenging orders passed by the Bombay High Court. These appeals, numbering over fifty, involve multiple private respondents, spread across different districts.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Says 'Technical Breaks' Can't Deny Maternity Leave, Orders Maharashtra Medical College to Pay Assistant Professor Dues
On paper, service of notice had been completed in most cases. In reality, however, many respondents had not entered appearance, while in several matters the service reports from the High Court were still awaited. Some respondents had filed counter affidavits, others sought time, and in a few cases, no response had come at all.
Court’s Observations
Registrar Mashroor Alam Khan, after patiently hearing the counsel present, noted that mere completion of service on record was not enough if parties failed to appear or if confirmation from the High Court had not reached the Supreme Court registry.
Read also:- Kerala High Court refuses bail to Palakkad man accused of bus harassment, says grave allegations block extraordinary relief under new
In several appeals, the Registrar recorded that “service of notice is complete on all the respondents but none has entered appearance,” and directed that such matters be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules.
In other cases, where advocates appeared for the first time and sought time, the Registrar allowed filing of vakalatnama and counter affidavits by a fixed date, observing that procedural fairness required giving respondents a reasonable opportunity. The order also repeatedly noted gaps where service reports from the High Court were missing, prompting issuance of reminders.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Trial Court Stay in ₹2.33 Crore Hotel Dispute, Cites Judicial Consistency and Misuse of CPC Section 10
Decision
The Registrar ultimately directed that most of the connected civil appeals be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court, while several others were ordered to be relisted on 22 January 2026, after issuance of reminders and completion of service formalities. Time was granted in specific cases to file vakalatnamas and counter affidavits, with clear deadlines. The proceedings ended with directions to furnish copies of the record to the concerned Advocates-on-Record for compliance.
Case Title: Punimati & Anr. vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.; Dayalu & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3647–3648 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Murder conviction under IPC Sections 302, 148, 149)
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
