1 903-cas-209-2006.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj CIVIL APPLICATION NO.209 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST)NO.8292 OF 2006 Smt. Sukhanta D. Naikude & Others .. Applicants. V/s. Smt. Shantabai A. Waghe & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Machindra Patil, for Applicants. None for Respondents. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocate for Applicants. 2 This Civil Application is filed for setting aside the order of refusal of registration of Second Appeal passed on 16th February, 2005 by the Registrar (Judl.) for non­removal of the office Objection. Civil Application No.313 of 2006 is filed for the same reasons and affidavit in 2 903-cas-209-2006.sxw support of that application is also filed. 3 Since Civil Application No.313 of 2006 is being heard on merits, in Civil Application No.209 of 2006, no separate orders are required to be passed. 4 In this Civil Application, the notice of Respondent No.7 has been returned unserved with bailiff's remark “reported to be dead about 6 to 7 years ago.” 5 I have perused the original records including the report of the bailiff. An endorsement has been made on the report by Shri Navnath A. Kare (Waghe). Perusal of the original proceedings of the suit shows that the Respondent No. 7 Smt. Janabai M. Waghe was the original Defendant No.4 and apparently remaining Respondents are her heirs who are already on record. Hence, the estate of the deceased was duly represented. In view of this, it is not necessary to take any steps as against Respondent No.7. In any case, considering the report of the bailiff regarding service on Respondent No.7, which contains an endorsement made by Navanth A. Kare (Waghe) on 29th April, 2006, stating that his grand mother has died about 6 to 7 years ago, it can be safely presumed that she had died either during pendency of the suit or during pendency of the Appeal in the District 3 903-cas-209-2006.sxw Court and, hence, there is no question of any abatement or setting aside the said abatement. Hence, I have proceeded to hear the Civil Application on its own merits. 6 The explanation for failure to comply with the conditional order within time is given in paragraph 3 of the Civil Application and in the absence of any opposition, the same deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, Civil Application No.313 of 2006 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). In view of this order, Civil Application No.209 of 2006 does not survive and same is disposed off. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)