1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.802 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.140 OF 1998 Moreshwar Raghunath Patil ..Applicant V/s. Sau.Tulsabai Balu Tandel & ors ..Respondents & ors Mr.S.M.Kamble, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.K.N.Kore, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . By the above Civil Application, the applicant prays for bringing heirs of the respondent No.1 on record and condonation of delay of 480 days in filing the above Second Appeal. It is the case of the applicant that he became aware of the death of the respondent No.2 when the above Second Appeal came up for admission before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13th December, 2004. On the 2 said date on account of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the learned counsel for the applicant became aware of the death of the respondent No.2 some time in the year 2004. 2. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that an affidavit-in-reply has been filed opposing the above Civil Application. It is stated in the said affidavit that the applicant was aware of the death of the respondent No.2 and the reasons mentioned in the Civil Application are merely a ruse for getting the delay condoned. It is further submitted that the said reasons do not constitute sufficient cause for this Court to exercise the discretion in the applicant's favour. 3. Considering the said reasons cited and considering the fact that the appeal was pending hearing and final disposal, in my view, interest of justice requires that the delay is condoned and Civil Application for bringing heirs of the respondent No.2 on record is 3 allowed. Civil Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (aa) and (b). The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that since the decree is one and indivisible, even if, the heirs of the respondent No.2 are brought on record, the maintainability of the above appeal could still be in question, as the appeal has already been dismissed against the respondent Nos.3 and 5 and therefore, the appeal against the other respondents is not maintainable. In my view, the said submission can be urged and considered at the final hearing of the Second Appeal. 4. In view of the delay in filing the application, interest of justice requires that the applicant to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the respondent No.1 to be paid within a period of four weeks from date. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) 4