1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1483/2009 (Vasanta S. Aher VERSUS Laxman A. Aher) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri C.A. Joshi, counsel for R-Sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 10 th JULY, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 08.12.2008, the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malegaon had allowed the application filed by the original plaintiff for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal heirs of deceased defendant no.1-B on record and for setting aside the abatement, if any. It is apparent from record that Pramila Pralhad Zadpe, defendant no.1-B to the suit, expired on 23.12.2007 and the other defendants had filed a pursis informing about the death of Late Pramila on 16.10.2008. On getting the knowledge about the death, an application was filed by the plaintiff for 2 bringing the legal heirs of deceased Pramila on record along with the application for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement, if any. The applications for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal heirs of deceased Pramila on record was allowed by an order dated 08.12.2008. On considering the applications made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order dated 08.12.2008 calls for no interference in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is necessary to note that the legal heirs of deceased Pramila have not filed the instant petition and they are not aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.12.2008. In fact, the petitioner, who is one of the other defendants has filed the instant petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied on the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 1819 to substantiate his submission that in the facts of the case, it must be considered that there was no delay in making the application for bringing the legal heirs of deceased Pramila on record as the said application was filed within 90 days from the date of knowledge. 3 Since the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE