-: 1 :- wp-1909/92. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2830 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1909 OF 1992 Ramchandra P. Pachunde Since deceased through L.Rs. ..Applicant. Versus Govind S. Khadilkar Since deceased through L.Rs. ..Respondents. Mr. K. S. Patil for the applicant. Mr. S. R. Page, for R-2 & 3. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for R-4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This civil application is filed for restoration of Writ Petition No. 1909 of 1992 as against respondent no.1 and his legal heirs. 2. During the pendency of above writ petition, respondent no.1 died. Therefore, the applicant filed civil application in this Court, being C.A. No. 448 of 2001, for bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1 on record. In that civil application rule was granted on 24/3/2011 and it was made returnable after four weeks. This civil application [C.A.No.448 of 2001] was placed on srp -: 2 :- wp-1909/92. board on 19/6/200 with the following office remark. Notice of R.No.1(A) received unserved with Bailiff s remark reported to be dead . C.A. not filed for bringing on record the heirs. 3. This court thereafter passed following order on that day. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is granted 2 weeks time to take steps to substitute the name of deceased respondent no.1, failing which petition shall stand dismissed against respondent no.1 as abated. 4. It is relevant to note that in fact the petitioner had already filed civil application bearing C.A.No.448 of 2001 to bring the legal heirs of respondent no.1 on record. In that application, respondent nos. 1B to 1D were already served. Respondent no.1A could not be served as she had already expired. Respondent nos. 1B to 1D are the legal heirs of respondent no.1A also. Since this potion was not brought to the notice of the Court while passing order dated 19th June 2001, the Court directed the petitioner to bring legal heirs of respondent no.1 on record. 5. In view of the fact that, the petitioner had already filed civil application, being C.A.No.448 of 2001 and respondent nos. 1B to 1D were already served, who are legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1A also, this civil application deserves to be -: 3 :- wp-1909/92. allowed. Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (RANJIT MORE, J.) -: 4 :- wp-1909/92. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 448 OF 2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1909 OF 1992 Ramchandra P. Pachunde ..Applicant. Versus Govind S. Khadilkar Since deceased through L.Rs. ..Respondents. Mr. K. S. Patil for the applicant. Mr. S. R. Page, for R-2 & 3. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for R-4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. Not on board. Mentioned for production in view of the fact that other civil applications in the aforesaid writ petition are on board. Production was granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Necessary amendment be carried out within the period of three weeks from today. Office shall issue fresh notice of the Writ petition to the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1, namely, respondent nos. 1B to 1D returnable on 28th April 2011. 4. Civil Application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp -: 5 :- wp-1909/92. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2831 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1909 OF 1992 Ramchandra P. Pachunde Since deceased through L.Rs. ..Applicant. Versus Govind S. Khadilkar Since deceased through L.Rs. ..Respondents. Mr. K. S. Patil for the applicant. Mr. S. R. Page, for R-2 & 3. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for R-4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. This civil application is filed for brining the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner on record. The petitioner expired on 2/3/2008 and thereafter present civil application is filed on 5/10/2010. Mr. Page, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 has no objection if this civil application is allowed. In that view of the matter and for the reasons stated in the civil application, this civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c). Necessary amendment be carried out within the period of three weeks from today. Civil application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp -: 6 :- wp-1909/92.