wp4517.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4517/2011 Shyamrao Sadashiv Chaudhary and others -vs- Janardhan Ganpat Hate (Deceased) and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 14.09.2011. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 16/08/2011 allowing an application filed by the respondents for substituting their names in place of deceased plaintiff on record subject to costs of rupees five thousand. The original plaintiff Madhukar had instituted a suit against the petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 1980. During the pendency of the suit, Madhukar expired on 31/10/2004. The respondents, the legal heirs of Madhukar, filed applications for substituting their names on record and also for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution. The petitioners filed their reply and opposed the applications. However, the trial Court by the impugned order dated 16/08/2011 allowed the application subject to costs of rupees five thousand. wp4517.11.odt 2/3 On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order along with the application filed by the respondents for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application, it appears that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application. The trial Court observed that the matter was extremely old and the parties were fighting the litigation since last thirty years. In such circumstances, the trial Court observed that it was necessary to decide the suit on merits as early as possible. Since the trial Court found that the explanation furnished by the respondents was reasonable and sufficient cause was shown for belatedly filing the application for substitution, the trial Court condoned the delay. It appears that the trial Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the substitution application as it was brought on record by the respondents that the suit was stayed and during the pendency of the suit, the counsel for the respondents had expired. It is stated in the application that the respondents were totally unaware that they were required to substitute their names on record as they had not engaged any other counsel for prosecuting the suit after their counsel expired. It is stated in the application that after making due enquiry, the respondents became aware that they were required to file the substitution application and since the delay caused in filing the substitution application was not deliberate but was bona fide, the delay needs to be condoned. wp4517.11.odt 3/3 On a perusal of the application and the reply filed thereto, it appears that there were sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the substitution application and the trial Court had therefore rightly allowed the applications filed by the respondents. The judgments reported in 2010(6) ALL MR (Supreme Court) 480 and 2010(1) ALL MR 404 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, specially when the Courts are required to adopt a liberal approach while deciding an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE