1 17-cas-363-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.363 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2007 Mrs. Kamaladevi J. Jaiswal (since deceased) through her Legal Heirs & Others .. Applicants. V/s. Mrs. Kunjatala K. Rele & Others .. Respondents. Mr. K. H. Holambe Patil, for the Applicants. Mr. Panicker, for Respondent Nos.14. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 Leave to amend and add M/s. Chintamani Enterprises as Respondent No.14,is granted. Amendment in the title of Civil Application to be carried out forthwith in the Court. 2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Mr. Panicker appearing for the Respondents including the said M/s. Chintamani Enterprises waives service. 2 17-cas-363-2011.sxw 3 Though, there is a delay on the part of the Applicants to carry out amendment in the application in C.R.A. No.122 of 2007 and though the reason for absence is not indicated in the Civil Application, in view of the fact that despite the failure of the Applicants to carry out the formal amendments in the title, the Registrar (Judl.-I) could not have dismissed the C.R.A. by order dated 20th April, 2011 which in fact, proceeded on the basis that the added Respondents were to be added only as intervener and not as a party Respondent, this Civil Application deserves to be allowed particularly when the delay is of 62 days and the C.R.A. which was admitted on merits for final hearing, after hearing the Advocate for the Original Respondents, should not be made infractuous, on account of negligence of the Advocate for the Applicants to carry out the amendment. For these reasons, the C.R.A. restored to file, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- paid to the Respondents. 5 In so far as the interim order granted in the C.R.A. is concerned it shall stand revived. 6 Accepting the statement made in paragraph 11 of the C.A. which are not seriously disputed, relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is granted. This order will not, however, preclude the Respondents from filing application, in case, Applicants have not paid the arrears of rent nor it will 3 17-cas-363-2011.sxw preclude the Respondents from filing an application for fixing and deposit of market rent as a condition precedent for continuation of the interim order in the Revision Application, and if and when such application/s is/are filed, same shall be heard and disposed off on its own merit and this order will not be cited by the Applicants as an order which concludes such rights of the Respondents. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)