- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELALTE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3284 OF 2006 Ravi Gopal Shetty & Ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. Umarshi Devji Gala & Ors. ....Respondents. ..... Mr.A.G.Damble with Ms.Sapna Samant for the Petitioners. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar with Mr. S.M. Suryavanshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 2C. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 12, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. : The original First Defendant expired on 20th July 1989. 13 years later, an application was filed with the following prayers: "(a) That show cause notice be ordered to be - 2 - issued to the defendant No.2 and Respondents as to why the plaintiffs be not allowed to bring the Respondents on record in place of the original defendant No.1 and also to carry out the necessary and consequential amendment thereto in the plaint and delay be condoned." The Learned Trial Judge is justified in holding that the application was extremely belated. The only statement of the Plaintiffs was that recently in the previous months Plaintiff 1-B came to know "that the original Defendant No.1 has also expired some time back." The application was filed on 23rd October 2002. In reply thereto, affidavits of independent witnesses were filed who had deposed that the Plaintiffs were present at the condolence meeting held when the original First Defendant expired. The Learned Trial Judge noted in his order that until the date of the arguments, no affidavit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs to deny those affidavits of independent witnesses. It is only when the Court raised a query at the time of arguments in regard to what such independent witnesses had stated that an affidavit was then - 3 - tendered on behalf of Plaintiff 1-B. The application that was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs on 23rd October 2002 was completely vague and lacking in necessary particulars. There was no cogent explanation for the delay. The vague statement that in the previous month Plaintiff 1B learnt of the death of original Defendant No.1 has not been accepted for valid reasons. The Learned Trial Judge was justified in declining to set aside the abatement. The delay of 13 years is totally unexplained. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ....