jpc 1 wp3219-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3219 OF 2011 Farukh Moosa Inamdar ... Petitioner Versus Mahmood Abdulla Inamdar ... Respondents and others Ms. Tejsweeta Kadam i/by Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the petitioner Mr. Abhishek A. Patil i/by M/s J. Shekhar & Co. for respondent nos. 1 to 5 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 16th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati by which order the application for condonation of delay of eight months in filing the application for bringing the heirs of defendant no. 23 on record came to be rejected. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is required to be noted that defendant no. 23 died on 30th May, 2010 and an application for bringing his heirs on record has been filed on 14th March, 2011. In view of the fact that the said application was belated, the Petitioner moved an jpc 2 wp3219-11.sxw application Exh. 207 for condonation of delay. It was the case of the petitioner that he got knowledge of the death of defendant no.23 on 17th September, 2010 and since the death has not been recorded in any Government record, the delay of eight months has occurred. The trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that in respect of deceased Defendant No.38- Gafur Mullani, the application for bringing the said defendant's heirs on record was filed on 24th June, 2010 and therefore, it appears that the petitioner is seeking to bring the heirs on record in a staggered manner. The trial Court was of the view that after obtaining the injunction order, the petitioner/plaintiff seems to delay the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court for rejecting the said application are unexceptional. The trial court ought to have considered the grounds mentioned by the plaintiff in the said application for condonation of delay. The fact that there are 70 defendants and the suit is filed for partition and possession, the said ground cannot be held against the plaintiff for denying him the benefit of condonation of delay. It is further significant to note that the defendant no.1 and defendants 2 to 5 have no objection to the heirs being brought on record. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 5th April, jpc 3 wp3219-11.sxw 2011 is quashed and set aside and the resultantly, the application Exh. 207 is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to bring the heirs of defendant no. 23 on record. Amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks from date. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their own costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)