IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 884 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 3237 OF 2008 SHRI XEC MAMOD BABAR (SIN DECEASED) THROUGH HIS HEIRS., ... Applicant Versus SHRI XEC MOHIDIN (SIN DECEASED) THROUGH HIS HEIRS., ... Respondent Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 4th February, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. These two applications are for condonation of delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1.(j) and for condonation of delay in bringing his heirs on record. 3. The allegations in the applications show that the respondent no.1.(j) died on 28.02.2004 i.e. after the decree was passed by the Trial Court. It is the contention of the applicants that the applicants did not know about the death of the deceased and came to know only on the report of the bailiff. 4. The other respondents object to the applications on the ground that there is inordinate delay in as much as the applicants were aware of the death of the deceased in September, 2005 when the notice in the name of the respondent no.1.(j) was returned with an endorsement 'addressee dead'. If the applicants were aware of the death of the respondent no.1. (j) in 2005, then obviously the applicants did have knowledge about his death in the year 2005. These applications have been moved in the year 2008 but these applications cannot be treated as applications under Order 22 when the deceased had died even before the appeal was preferred before this Court. In the circumstances, these applications can be treated as applications under order 1 Rule 10. 5. In order that the matter is finally and effectually decided, the parties should be joined before the Court. In the circumstances, the applications are allowed and the legal representatives of the respondent no.1. (j) be brought on record. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.