( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4652 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4654 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1549 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1525 OF 1989 Damu s/o Daulat Patil Since deceased, by L.Rs. Shantabai Damodar Patil and others APPLICANTS VERSUS Waman s/o Shankar Desai Since deceased, by L.Rs. Sau. Kamalbai w/o Bapusaheb Warangaonkar and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the applicants. Mr. R.B. Temak, advocate holding for Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th March, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The applications are filed for bringing legal ( 2 ) representatives of deceased petitioner on record, for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement order. It appears that there is delay of 1530 days in bringing the legal representatives on record and 46 days’ delay in setting aside the order of abatement dated 07-04-2004. 3. According to the applicants, there was communication gap between the counsel and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. They were not aware of pendency of the petition and the stage thereof. It appears that subsequently, they approached advocate and lateron the advocate sent draft of the affidavit to them. Again there was delay in filing of the affidavit because the concerned advocate could not get the communication sent by the counsel. There appears no intentional delay as such. In the interest of justice, the delay is condoned by accepting the explanation stated in the application. Hence, the abatement is set aside. The legal representatives of deceased petitioner shall be taken on record. ( 3 ) 4. The respondent No.1A has died. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 have been served. The substitution is allowed. All the three civil applications are accordingly allowed and as such disposed of. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca4652-2006