1 (CAW 1177 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICAITON NO.1177 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4428 OF 1995 Mrs.Munnidevi Parasram Purohit ...Applicant Vs. Smt.Lalitaben Rameshchandra Maniar ...Respondent And Rameshchandra Maniar and Ors. ...Opp.Parties. ----- Mrs.U.K. Shah i/b. Mr.Kishor D. Shah for Applicant Mr.V.B.Naik i/b. L.C. Tolat and Co. for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the order of abatement of the writ petition on account of death of the sole Respondent. 3. According to the Applicant, she came to know that the Respondent had expired on 26.3.2011 and, therefore, she wrote a letter to the Respondent’s advocate M/s. Dhuru and Co., making inquiries whether the information is true or not. However, according to the 2 (CAW 1177 of 2011) Applicant, M/s. Dhuru & Co. informed the Applicant that they were no longer appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Thereafter, on 8.3.2011, the advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent informed the Court that the Respondent had expired. It is submitted that therefore, delay, if any, caused in filing the application may be condoned. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the statement made by the Applicant in paragraph 2 of the application is incorrect. He submitted that all the tenants had attended the funeral of the Respondent and, therefore, it was submitted that this was not a fit case where the delay should be condoned. 5. On the other hand, the Applicant had filed a further affidavit in rejoinder, in which, it is stated that the rent collector had left the services in the year 1985 and the Applicant was residing in a different building and, therefore, had no occasioned to know about the death of the Respondent. 6. Be that as it may, in my view, the explanation given by the Applicant appears to be a plausible explanation and, therefore, without going into the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties, according to me, sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of 3 (CAW 1177 of 2011) delay. 7. Delay, therefore, is condoned. The order of abatement is set aside. The Applicant is permitted to bring the heirs of the Respondent on record. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks. 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service on behalf of the heirs of the Respondent. Place the petition on the final hearing board on 4th July, 2011. Civil Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)