1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.61/2009 APPLICANTS : 1. Sou. Rekha w/o Namdeorao Dadoria Aged about 45 years, Occ. - Household, R/o Gondia, District : Gondia. 2. Narayan s/o Baliram Harode Aged 44 years, Occ. - Business. 3. Sanjay s/o Baliram Harode Aged 42 years, Occ. - Business. 4. Vijay s/o Baliram Harode Aged 40 years, Occ. - Business. All 2, 3 & 4 r/o Satranjipura, Nagpur. ...Versus... NON-APPLICANTS : 1. Ishwar Domaji Zade Aged about 70 years. 2. Smt. Geetabai @ Leelavati Mahadule Aged Major. 3. Smt. Jyoti Ishwar Zade Aged about 50 years, Occ. - Household. All r/o Mahadula (Panchale), Tahsil Ramtek, District : Nagpur. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri R.R. Srivastav, Adv. for applicants] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 22.09.2009 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants at length. 2. An order made by the appellate Court, rejecting application, below Exh.20, for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit after 25 years is under challenge in the present civil revision application. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the appellate Court ought to have allowed the applicants to withdraw the suit and granted liberty as prayed for since the decree was passed against the dead person and thus is nothing but nullity. That apart, according to him, finding recorded by the trial Court in paragraph No.16 of its judgment is to the effect that there was technical defect inasmuch as the plaint was not signed by all the plaintiffs, which was instituted in the year 1985. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants, at the outset, I find that this course of making application for the first time after 25 years must be deprecated since the net result is that the Court would be reopening the litigation after 25 years. Such luxuries cannot be allowed in the present set up. Steps which were 3 sought under application (Exh.20) could have well been taken at appropriate time. In my opinion, several rights which have been crystallized in favour of the opposite party cannot be torn apart after such a long period of 25 years making it travesty of justice. The law of limitation will also be indirectly overreached by allowing such application and therefore, in my opinion, the appellate Court has rightly rejected application (Exh.20) and no fault can be found out with the appellate Court in doing so. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present civil revision application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicants states that since in the execution proceedings, applicants are entitled to raise legal objections, observations made herein should not come in their way. 6. I make it clear that I have not made any observation, which would affect the case of the applicants in objecting the execution proceedings in accordance with law. JUDGE ssw