- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3993 OF 2009 Amarsinh Rajaram Suryavanshi ... Petitioner Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Phadke & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. ,S. M. Railkar for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Deshmukh, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is original defendant No. 5. The defendant No.6, the father of the petitioner expired on 29th November 2005 during pendency of the suit filed by the first respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the advocate for the petitioner filed pursis in the trial Court on 15th January 2006 intimating the Court about the death of 6th defendant. Thereafter an application was filed by the first respondent praying that he may be exempted from bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.6. The said application was rejected. Thereafter in April 2006 an application was made by the first respondent, praying for deletion of the defendant No.6, and for carrying out amendment to cause-title of the suit for showing that petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased defendant No.6. The said application was rejected. 2. The advocate for petitioner pointed out that an application was thereafter made on 10th July 2008 for the - 2 - condonation of delay and for bringing on record the names of the legal representatives of the defendant No.6. By an impugned order, said application has been allowed. It was stated in the said applications that the defendant Nos. 5 and 7 who are the legal representatives of the defendant No.6 were already on record. A prayer was made in the said applications to bring on record the widow of the deceased defendant No. 6 on record. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in view of the rejection of the earlier application filed for the same relief, it is obvious that the present application ought not to have been allowed as the same is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is true that the application has been filed belatedly. As the son and daughter of the deceased defendant No. 6 were already on record in another capacity, there was no question of any abatement of suit as against the defendant No.6. The effect of the impugned order is that apart from defendant Nos. 5 and 7 who are already on record, the widow of deceased defendant No. 6 who was not on record will be brought on record. 3. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned order in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the same is rejected. [ A. S. OKA, J.]