SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.808 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2322 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 1992 Shri.Khurshed N.Satarawala Deceased by his residuary legatee Mrs.Bapsy N.Lawyer (since deceased) ...Petitioner Versus Shri.Kohiyar T.Satarawala ...Respondent And M/s.Jwel Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.807 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 1992 Shri.Khurshed N.Satarawala Deceased by his residuary legatee Mrs.Bapsy N.Lawyer ...Petitioner Versus Shri.Kohiyar T.Satarawala ...Respondent And Mr.H.S.Karanjawalla & Anr. ...Applicants WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2323 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 1992 : 2 : Shri.Khurshed Nadirsha Satarawala Deceased by his residuary legatee Mrs.Bapsy N.Lawyer ...Petitioner Versus Shri.Kohiyar T.Satarawala & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Ms.Neha Bhide for Applicant in CA/809/08 & 808/08. Mr.Rahul Narichania i/b Harish Joshi & Co.for Applicants in CA/807/2008. Ms.U.M.Jhaveri for Petitioner in CA/2322/05 & CA/2323/05. Ms.S.M.Dandekar for Respondents in all matters. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 8, 2008. AUGUST 8, 2008. AUGUST 8, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Besides Civil Application No.809/2008, there are other four Civil Applications pending between the parties. 2. Civil Application No.807/2008 has been taken out by the Applicants who claim to be executors under the Will executed by the deceased Petitioner. On that basis they are praying for : 3 : bringing them on record as legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Civil Application No.808/2008 has been filed by the Applicant who claims to have purchased the suit property from the deceased Petitioner during her lifetime. On that basis, the Applicant claims that the Applicant is entitled for being brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner. 4. There is divergent claim between the two Applications referred to above, which will have to be resolved at appropriate stage. Undoubtedly, till that issue is resolved, as of now, there are no legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner on record. 5. In the peculiar facts of the present case, and in the interest of justice, the appropriate course to my mind is to allow the pending Application (CA/809/2008) notwithstanding the pendency of the abovesaid two applications on the : 4 : assumption that both the applicants will be interested in seeking the same relief claimed in the said Application. In that, whether the executor or the subsequent purchaser is brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner, both of them will be interested in bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the Respondent on record. Thus understood, I am proceeding to dispose of the Application (CA/809/2008) on clear understanding between the two applicants that in the event, the subsequent purchaser succeeds in the Application being Civil Application No.808/2008, the order which is passed today on the subject application will be treated to be passed at the instance of the said Applicant. However, in the event the executors succeed in their application being Civil Application No.807/2008, in that case, the present order will be deemed to have been passed at the instance of the said applicant. Such approach will not militate against the interest of any of the Applicant but would subserve the interest of justice. : 5 : 7. The order dated 17th February 2004 records that the Writ Petition has abated. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Puran Puran Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1996 SC Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1996 SC Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1996 SC 1092, 1092, 1092, it is well established position that provisions of Order 22 are inapplicable to Writ Petitions. 8. In the circumstances, as the present Civil Application (CA/809/2008) is not opposed, the same is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Amendment be carried out within two weeks from today. It will be open to either of the Applicants to carry out the amendment within two weeks from today. That, however, will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective Applicants on merits of their contention. 9. In view of the above order, no further orders are required on Civil Application No.2323/2005. The same is disposed of. 10. Civil Application No.2322/2005 is disposed : 6 : of leaving all questions open to be agitated by the Applicants in Civil Application Nos.807/2008 and 808/2008 respectively. 11. List Civil Application Nos.807/2008 and 808/2008 on 26th August 2008. Parties to exchange pleadings to be filed in the Registry well in advance. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.