AGK 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1114 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1114 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1114 OF 2008 Gulshan w/o Hasan Mujawar & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus. Sikandar Tajuddin Mujawar & Ors. ...Respondents Shri V.S.Talkute for the Petitioners. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 02nd May, 2008. : 02nd May, 2008. : 02nd May, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard advocate for the petitioners. Except the respondent No.5, other respondents are duly served. Advocate for the petitioners states that the name of the respondent No.5 has been already deleted from the memorandum of appeal in the District Court. 2. An application at Exhibit 24 was made by the petitioners in the pending appeal for condonation of delay and for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4 who died on 07th November, 2003. 4. There was an application filed by the proposed legal representatives of the respondent No.4 at Exhibit 39 praying for dismissing the application at Exhibit 24. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Adhoc : 2 : 2 : 2 : District Judge dismissed the application made by the petitioner at Exhibit 24 and allowed the application at Exhibit 39. 4. After having heard the submissions of the advocate for petitioner, I find that the application made by the petitioners at Exhibit 24 deserved to be allowed. As pointed out earlier, none appears for the proposed legal representatives of the respondent No.4. 5. Considering the fact that a substantive appeal preferred by the petitioners was pending for final disposal, the delay of one year and four months ought to have been condoned by the first appellate Court by taking a liberal view of the matter. However, the learned Judge has adopted a technical approach. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 04th October, 2007 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Application at Exhibit 24 made by the petitioners is allowed and application at Exhibit 39 made by the concerned respondents : 3 : 3 : 3 : is rejected. (iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (iv) No orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE