1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.674 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.675 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.676 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITI9ON NO.3005 OF 1999 Vinayak Gangadhar Joshi and others Applicants versus Manohar S. Kshytriya and others Respondents Tushar Sonawane for applicants. P.N.Joshi for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned advocate for the respondents. The writ petition filed by the predecessors of the applicants was dismissed by order dated 18th July 2002 on the ground that the sole respondent had died long back and through an intimation thereof was given long back, no steps have been taken by the petitioners in the writ petition. 2. The case made out in the civil applications is that the sole respondent in the writ petition died on 31st October 2000. After obtaining the death certificate of the sole respondent, the applicant no.1(d) (son of the original petitioner) handed over the death certificate along with the list of heirs to the advocate for the petitioner in January 2001. It is stated that 2 on 28th October 2007 the original petitioner died and in January 2008 the applicants provided the death certificate of the sole petitioner and a list of his legal representatives to the advocate appointed by the petitioner. It is stated that in September 2008 the advocate appointed by the original petitioner informed the applicants that the writ petition has been dismissed on 18th July 2002. Reliance has been placed on letter dated 29th January 2006 sent by the husband of the applicant no.1(d) to the said advocate. 3. Civil Application No.674 of 2009 has been filed for restoration. Civil Application NO.676 of 2009 has been filed for bringing on record the heirs of the said sole respondent and Civil Application NO.675 of 2009 has been filed for bringing on record the heirs of the original petitioner. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants cannot be blamed for dismissal of the petition in view of the averments made in the civil applications. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that if the petition which is dismissed in the year 2002 is to be restored in the year 2009 after a lapse of seven years, the heirs of the original respondent will suffer great prejudice. He pointed out that the original writ petition is of the year 1999 and the suit is of the year 1987. 5. I have considered the submissions. Rule was issued in the main writ petition on 18th August 1999. The litigants are well aware that writ petitions remain pending in this Court for at least ten to twelve years, therefore, the litigants are not expected to continuously keep a watch on their writ petitions especially when they know that the petitions are likely to reach for final hearing after a long time. In the present case, it is claimed that after the death of the sole respondent, the names of the heirs and death certificate of the respondent was handed over in January 2001 to the advocate appointed by the original petitioner to enable the advocate to take appropriate steps. Similarly in January 2008, the death certificate of the original petitioner along with the list of his legal representatives was 3 given by the applicants to their earlier advocate. In short, the applicants contend that everything possible was done by them which could be done by any ordinary litigant. 6. Though there is a long delay, going by the assertions made in the civil applications, a litigant cannot be allowed to suffer. It is true that the prejudice will be caused to the legal representatives of the respondents. However, the prejudice can be taken care of by awarding costs. The amount of costs in this case is quantified at Rs.7,500/-. 7. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) Civil Application No.674 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c); (b) Civil Application No.675 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c); (c) Civil Application No.676 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c); (d) The civil applications are allowed subject to the applicants paying to the respondent consolidated amount of costs of Rs.7,500/- within four weeks from today; (e) Payment of costs is a condition precedent; (f) Payment of costs of Rs.7,500/- to the respondent and/or deposit of the said amount in this Court will be treated as a sufficient compliance with this order. (A.S.OKA, J.)