1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2006. Smt. Shashikala w/o Arjun Bhaladhare Vs. Dinesh Basantkumar Yadav .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.M. Ukey, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25th JULY, 2011. This petition challenges the order dated 15.04.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur rejecting the application Exh.91 seeking orders of the Court on Pursis Exh.77 and on the application Exh.79 as not pressed. The petitioner/defendant filed a Pursis Exh.77 stating that the plaintiff has expired. The petitioner thereafter filed application Exh.79 for bringing the names of legal representatives of the deceased/plaintiff on record. The plaintiff wanted the Court to treat the Pursis Exh.77 and application Exh.79 as not pressed. It is not disputed that the application under Section 22 of Rule 4 of C.P.C. has been filed by the persons claiming to be the legal .....2/- 2 representatives of the deceased/plaintiff on record. This application is pending for adjudication and the enquiry is going on. The apprehension of the petitioners is that since application Exh.91 has been rejected by the Trial Court the statements made in the Pursis and the application at Exh.77 and Exh.79 respectively would be treated as admissions on the part of the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff has expired on 30.01.2011 and that the persons named in the application at Exh.79 are legal representatives of the plaintiff. It cannot be disputed that even such statements are made in the Pursis and the application, it is open for the petitioner/defendant to explain the same. In view of this there is nothing wrong in the order dated 15.05.2005 and the petitioner/defendant is at liberty to lead evidence and explain. In view of this application, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE NSN ...../-