1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 724/2007 ( Vijayshankar Ramnath Pande VERSUS Smt.Renu Vijayshankar Pande ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Mohta, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 7 th August , 2007. By this revision application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) on 19.07.2007 upholding the objection no.3 for filing of a certified copy of a decree. The applicant further seeks a declaration that the filing of a certified copy of a decree is not necessary in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended hence, objection no.3 as raised by the Registry, be overruled. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are stated thus----- The second appeal was filed by the appellant against a judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 245/2005 in a matrimonial matter whereby the claim of the appellant for grant of decree of divorce was rejected. Along with the appeal memo, the applicant had filed the following documents; a) Certified Copy of judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 245/2005. 2 b) Certified copy of memorandum of appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No.245/2005. c) Certified copy of judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.49/2004. After the appeal memo was filed with the aforesaid three documents, the Registry raised an objection to the effect that the certified copy of the decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.245/2005 was not filed. The appellant raised an objection to the office objection by filing the reply whereby it was pointed out by the appellant that the certified copy of the decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.245/2005 was not a necessary accompaniment in view of the amended provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the provisions of Section 32 of the Repeal and Savings in the amending Act which came into effect from 01.07.2002, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that it was necessary to amend the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and specially Rule 12 of Chapter 4 of the Rules which prescribed that every memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by the certified copy of a decree and the judgment under appeal. The Registrar (Judicial) relied on the provisions of Rule 12 of Chapter 4 and Practice Note 15(B) for overruling the objection raised by the appellant. This order of Registrar (Judicial) passed on 3 19.07.2007 is challenged in the instant revision application. The order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) on 19.07.2007 cannot be set aside in this revision application as though Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the appellant should necessarily file a copy of the impugned judgment along with the appeal memo and the requirement of filing of a certified copy of the decree is omitted with effect from 01.07.2002, the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, specially Rule 12 of Chapter 4 and the Practice Note 15(B) clearly stipulate that the appeal memo should be accompanied with the copy of the judgment as well as the decree against which the appeal is preferred. It is conspicuous to note that though the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial), the applicant/appellant has not sought a declaration that Rule 12 of Chapter 4 and Practice Note 15(B) are void and are liable to be quashed and set aside. In the absence of any prayer to the aforesaid effect and challenge to the validity of the relevant High Court Appellate Side Rules and Practice Note 15(B) in an appropriate proceedings, it cannot be held that the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) on 19.07.2007 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The declaration sought in this revision about the absence of necessity to file a certified copy of the 4 decree also cannot be granted as Rule 12 Chapter 4 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and Practice Note 15(B) are still in force. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would not be necessarily to consider the decisions reported in AIR 1971 Bombay 21, 2006(2) ALL M.R. 19 and AIR 1985 Bombay 274 relied on by the counsel for the appellant as this Court is not considering the question of validity of Rule 12 Chapter 4 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and Practice Note 15(B). None of these decisions relates to the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and the validity thereof. The miscellaneous civil application is, therefore, dismissed. The counsel for the appellant seeks a week's time to file the certified copy of the decree in Regular Civil Appeal no.245/2005 as he had filed the revision for setting aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) on 19.07.2007. In the facts of the case, the appellant is granted a week's time from today to file the certified copy of the decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal no.245/2005. JUDGE APTE