1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.535 OF 2009 Shri Ramesh Baban Tupe & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Mr.Popatrao Jaisingh Khilare & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for petitioners. Mr.S.R.Page for Respondent Nos.11a to 22. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This Petition, in my opinion, is ill-advised. The Court below rightly rejected the application preferred by the Petitioners paying for issuance of notice to the legal heirs of the Respondent No.11 on the finding that the legal heirs of the Respondent No.11 have already appeared in the proceeding before the Court. Once the persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent have appeared in the proceedings, question of issuing notice does not arise and on that finding, the Application came to be rejected. Once that application is rejected, the appeal Court was bound to proceed with the hearing of 2 the appeal. 3. The second order, which is impugned in the Petition, is questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Appellate Court calling upon the Petitioner to proceed with the argument of the case. As aforesaid, this Petition is ill-advised, the same is rejected. 4. Office to examine whether the Petitioner is liable to pay two sets of court fee, as two separate orders are challenged in the common Petition. If the Petitioner is called upon to do so, shall pay the court fee forthwith, not later than one week from such intimation. 5. The Petition is disposed on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)