1 32-cas-687-2011-group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.687 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.689 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.677 OF 2007 Shri Ramchandra S. Ghanvat .. Applicant V/s. Shri Sarjerao P. Godase & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Vinod Jadhav i/b. Mr. Vijay Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, for Respondent No.1 Mr. V. S. Talkute, for Respondent No.2A and 2C. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the Applicant in all the Civil Applications, Mr. K.V. Saste for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Talkute, for Respondent Nos.2A and 2C. 2 32-cas-687-2011-group.sxw 2 Respondent No.1 was original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 238 of 1988 which was dismissed on 13th April, 1999. Original Defendant No.2 – Shankar Khandu Ghanvat who was also Respondent No.2 in Regular Civil Appeal No.183 of 1999 and who is Respondent No.3 in this Appeal, has died on 29th July, 2004. Regular Civil Appeal No.183 of 1999 filed by Respondent No.1- Original Plaintiff, was allowed on 14th December, 2005. Thus, the said Shankar K. Ghanvat died during pendency of the Appeal in the District Court and his heirs were not brought on record. Civil Application No.687 of 2011 is filed for bringing the heirs of Respondent No. 3- Shankar Ghanvat on record. 3 The Original Defendant No.1(C) Sau. Nakusha M. Ghanvat who was Respondent No.1(B) in the Civil Appeal No.183 of 1999 died on 24th December, 2001, again during pendency of the Appeal in the District Court. She is Respondent No.2(B) and Civil Application No.688 of 2011 is filed for seeking prayer to delete her name and for adding the name of Rajnaja Hanumant Nanavare as one of the heir of deceased Mahadu K. Ghanvat, though she was not added as heir in the Court. Mahadu Ghanvat, Defendant No.1 had died during pendency of the suit and Ranjana Nanavare was not brought on record as his heir. 4 Civil Application No.689 of 2011 has been filed for bringing 3 32-cas-687-2011-group.sxw heirs of Respondent No.4 – Dinakar Bayaji Ghanvat on record who was Original Defendant No.3 and Respondent No.3 in the Appeal in the District Court. He had died on 10th September, 1992. 5 Perusal of the Judgment of the Trial Court shows that in the title, he was shown as deceased. Hence, obviously, his heirs were not brought on record and though he was shown as Respondent No.3 in the Appeal in the District Court, his impleadment in the said Appeal is redundant. 6 For all the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that Civil Application Nos.687, 688 and 689 of 2011 are not maintainable and it is not the responsibility of the Appellant in the Second Appeal to bring the heirs of any of the said deceased persons on record. All of them had died much prior to the filing of the Second Appeal and, hence, there is no question of abatement of the Second Appeal as against them, nor any question of delay in filing the Civil Application for setting aside the abatement or bringing their heirs on record in the Second Appeal. 7 The question regarding the legal effect of the death of the said Original Defendant No.2, Defendant No.1-B and Defendant No.3, during pendency of the Appeal in the District Court and the suit as aforesaid on the 4 32-cas-687-2011-group.sxw question of maintainability of the suit and the Appeal in the District Court will be gone into when the Second Appeal is heard for final hearing. For that purpose, copy of this order to retain in the farad sheet of the Second Appeal. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, all Civil Applications are disposed off as not maintainable. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)