1 IN THE LHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1647/2008 Baburao Zodage & Anr. PETITIONER VS. Dattu Zodage & Anr. RESPONDENTS Mr.Vilas B.Tapkir for the petitioner Mr.Uday P.Warunjikar for Respondents CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 29th April,2009 P.C. . This petition is filed against the order dated 19/10/2007 passed by the Civil Judge,J.D.Khed setting aside the abatement against plaintiff nos.2,7 and 9 in the suit and condoning the delay .The petition stands on the sole objection that the delay was condoned by the Trial Court without giving any reason why the delay was caused and how it is justifiable. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that plaintiff no.2 died in the year 2003, plaintiff no.7 died in the year 2004 and plaintiff no.9 died in the year 2005. However, one common application was made by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record in the year 2006. He has further submitted that no sufficient reason was given by the plaintiff about the delay. 2 3] Heard respondents. 4] The proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is necessary for the parties to give reason and explain the delay when the prayer for condonation of delay is made, is legal and sound. It is true that in the application for brining the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs on record no reason was mentioned. However, in other application the plaintiff has given the reason that the said suit was on sine die list and the plaintiff was ignorant about the law and therefore, there was delay in submitting the application for bringing the legal representatives on record. It would have been correct on the part of the learned Trial Judge to discuss in brief the reasons of justifying the condonation of delay. However, it is to be noted that in the original suit besides the deceased plaintiffs there are other plaintiffs and so the suit was alive and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge of condoning delay and allowing application to bring the legal representatives of the plaintiff on record is correct. Hence no interference is warranted. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)