1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8239 OF 2008 Raju Shidojirao Kalyankar, since deceased through his L.R’s. Parubai Raju Kalyankar & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Tippanna Revansiddha Awale & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. 2. Although notice is issued and duly served, none appears for the Respondents. 3. Despite issuance of notice, I am of the opinion that this is not the stage at which this Court should interfere. The amendment to the plaint has been allowed and is carried out but according to the learned Advocate appearing for the 2 Petitioners, the issue is still remains as to whether the amendment being permitted, the initial defect is cured at all. In other words, the initial defect of institution of a Suit against dead person is a issue which still remains and must be allowed to be raised. 4. My reluctance to interfere in Writ Jurisdiction does not preclude the Petitioner from raising the appropriate pleas. If the final orders in the Suit are adverse to the Petitioners, then, while assailing and impugning them, they can raise appropriate pleas and grounds and urge that the Suit at the thresh-hold itself was liable to be dismissed and the amendment does not cure that defect. All pleas in that behalf are kept open. The Trial Court may consider disposing off the Suit expeditiously. 5. The Petition is disposed off accordingly. No costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.