1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.705 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3089 OF 1994 Anwar Tayyabali Akbar ..... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents And Mrs.Pensri Skuntalak ..... Applicant Mr.J.P.Sen a/w Smt.Vanita Kakkar i/by Smt.Swapnali Rane, for the applicant. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for respondent No.1 to 5. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 15th June, 2010 P.C. 1. By the above civil application, the applicant seeks a relief that she be permitted to be added as petitioner in place/instead of the original petitioner and that she be permitted to reconstruct the above writ petition. Since there is a delay in filing the application, the applicant also seeks condonation of delay and restoration of the writ petition, which has been dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 1997. 2. The applicant claims to be the wife of the original petitioner Anwar Tayyabali Akbar, which claim is based on her marriage to the said Anwar Tayyabali Akbar in the year 1958. The applicant in 2 support of the said claim, has annexed various documents, to indicate that she is the wife of the said Anwar Tayyabali Akbar. 3. The above writ petition has been dismissed for non- prosecution by an order dated 17-06-1997 on account of non-removal of office objection. It appears that the original petitioner also died on 09-08-2000 in Bangkok. The applicant has annexed a document purported to be the death certificate of the said original petitioner. 4. In so far as the above application is concerned, the respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply opposing it and pointing out that in the document appended to the civil application filed by the applicant, the name of the deceased is Robert Ali Akbar, whereas the name of the petitioner was Anwar Tayyabali Akbar. The respondents therefore, have questioned the fact of the applicant being the wife of the original petitioner. The applicant however, relies upon various documents annexed to the civil application in support of her claim that she is the wife of the original petitioner. 5. In our view, it is not for this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to adjudicate the issue as to whether the applicant is a legally wedded wife of the said original petitioner. This Court obviously cannot embark upon that exercise by taking into consideration the documents on which reliance is 3 placed by the applicant in support of her case, for being impleaded in place of the original petitioner. This Court cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the original writ petition has been dismissed for default in the year 1997 and the original petitioner has also expired in the year 2000. The property in question was declared as evacuee property at the relevant time, the possession of which, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondents, was handed over to an allottee, whose name has been mentioned in the said affidavit-in-reply by the respondents. 6. Hence, without going into the claim of the applicant, we dispose of the above civil application for impleadment on the ground that this Court in its Writ Jurisdiction, would not embark upon the said exercise of adjudicating as to whether the applicant is a legally wedded wife of the original petitioner. However, if the applicant if so advised, she may file appropriate proceedings for seeking a declaration that she is a legally wedded wife of the said original petitioner. The rights of the applicant, if any, would be contingent upon the decision in the said proceedings. The said proceedings would decide whether the applicant is entitled file any application for its restoration and thereafter, to prosecute the said petition. If the said proceedings are decided in favour of the applicant, the applicant would be entitled to file an application for the restoration of the above petition. If such an application for restoration of 4 the petition is filed by the applicant, the same would be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion in that behalf. 7. With the aforesaid observations, civil application is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )