1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6437 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4023 OF 1995 Kisan Kondiba Ghungarde APPLICANT VERSUS Pandurang Deosthan Ghas, and others RESPONDENTS Mr.R.A.Tambe, advocate for applicant. Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, advocate for respondents no.1 and 3 to 11 Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, AGP for respondent no.13 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 14/07/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present civil application, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 2189 days for bringing legal heirs of deceased petitioner on record. After the civil application was filed, notices of the civil application were served on the respondents. On behalf of respondent no.1 to 12, as the petition stands dismissed against the original respondent no.2 vide order dated 31/03/2008, an affidavit in reply is filed to oppose this civil application. No separate affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the State, original defendant no.13. 2 2. Heard advocate for applicant followed by the arguments of advocate for respondents. Applicant has stated in para no.2 of the application that an intimation was received from the advocate for respondents about the demise of one of the respondent on 15/03/2008. In the premise, advocate for applicant communicated this information received from the advocate for respondents. On receipt of this communication-cum-letter received by the present applicant who is claiming to be the heir of the original petitioner and he intimated the advocate on record that the original petitioner is no more. Thereafter steps are taken to bring the legal heirs on record. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1 to 12, they denied all these contentions and according to the respondents, the death certificate collected and annexed with the civil application shows that the original petitioner expired on 03/01/2002 and thereafter, within the time-limit prescribed, no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs of deceased petitioner on record. Hence the civil application is barred by period of limitation and to be rejected. 3. Considering these submissions across the bar, I have to bear it in mind that the original writ petition is filed in the year 1995. In the said writ petition, order of ‘rule’ was passed on 15/10/1999, and the rule was made returnable. Thereafter neither the parties were in contact with their respective advocate, nor the advocates were in contact with their respective parties. As once the writ petition is admitted and the rule is passed, advocates are communicating the parties only after the petition is listed for final hearing, till then it is 3 practice followed in all the Courts that unless the petition is finally listed for final hearing. Notices of the petition are not given to their respective clients by the advocate, and if this is so, the advocate for petitioner communicated the petitioner only after intimation about the demise of one of the respondent was received from the advocate for respondent and at that time, the legal heirs of the petitioner realized that the original petitioner is no more and moved the application alongwith application for condonation of delay to bring the legal heirs on record on the grounds stated in para no.3 of the plaint, and those grounds are sufficient to bring the legal heirs on record. In the premise, the civil application to be disposed of with following order - 1. Civil application allowed in terms of prayer clause “A”. 2. The delay to bring the legal heirs of original petitioner is hereby condoned and the application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2009/ca6437-08