1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAA No.1276 of 2002. In Appeal from order No.448 of 1992. Dhansukhlal Amritlal Parekh. ..Appellants. ..Appellants. ..Appellants. Versus. Versus. Versus. Godrej Boyce Manuf. ..Respondents. ..Respondents. ..Respondents. Jaideep Mitra i/b M/s.Desai & Chinoy for for the Appellants. K.K. Mehta with A.J. Dhapsekar i/b Payne & Co.for respondents. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED:18.03.2006 DATED:18.03.2006 DATED:18.03.2006 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application. This application is opposed by the counsel for the respondent, on the argument that appellants have not brought on record all the trustees of the respondent Trust. This argument overlooks that in the present application, which I am required to consider today, is for the limited purpose for bringing on record heirs of deceased respondent no.2./original appellant no.2. The fact that all the trustees of respondent trust are not brought on record, is not relevant, for deciding this application. As it is not in dispute that the deceased appellant has been named as respondent in the cognate CRA No. 612/92, this order would also enable the applicant in Civil 2 Revision Application to carry out the amendment to the cause title, so as to bring on record heirs of deceased appellant, who has been named as respondent, in the said revision. Hence, this application is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (4). 2. The amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today, in both proceedings. [A.M.KHANWILKAR. [A.M.KHANWILKAR. [A.M.KHANWILKAR. J] J] J] 3 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Application No. 612 of 1992. with A.O. No. 448 of 1992. M/s.Godrej & Boyco Mfg.Co. ..Applicant. ..Applicant. ..Applicant. Versus. Versus. Versus. Dhansukhlal A.Parekh & Ors. ..Respondents. ..Respondents. ..Respondents. K.K. Mehta with A.J. Dhapsekar i/b Payne & Co.for applicant. Jaideep Mitra i/b M/s.Desai 7 Chinoy for the appellant. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED:18.03.2006 DATED:18.03.2006 DATED:18.03.2006 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 4 Heard the learned c ned c ned counsel for the parties Perused the application. This application is opposed by the counsel for the respondent, on the argument that appellants have not brought on record all the trustees of the respondent Trust. This argument overlooks that in the present application which I am require to consider today, is for the limited purpose fo bringing on record heirs of deceased respondent no.2./original appellant no.4. The fact that all the trustees of respondent trust are not brought on record, is not relevant, for deciding this application. As it is not in dispute that the lant has been named as respondent in A No. 612/92, this order would also licant in Civil Revision Application he amendment to the cause title, so record heirs of deceased appellant, named as respondent, in the said , this application is made absolute yer Clause (4). 2. The amendment to be carried out within two from today in both proceedings. 5 A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.