spb/- 1 wp7229-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7229 OF 2010 Sahebrao Wajojirao Patankar, since deceased : 1A. Prakash Sahebrao Patankar & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. 1. Shri Dattu Tukaram Khole, sinde deceased: 1A. Shamrao Dattu Khole (Suryawanshi) & Ors. ... Respondents. ­­­­­ Mr. N.J. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the Respondents. ­­­­­ CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 05th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge­I, Sangli, allowing the application of the respondents (decree holders) for making correction in the records of Regular Civil Appeal No. 414 of 1986. 2 The respondents herein were the appellants in the District Court. They had filed Civil Appeal No.414/1986 in the District Court at Sangli. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants, namely, Dattu Tukaram Khole died on 2nd January, 1987. An application was made by spb/- 2 wp7229-10.sxw them for bringing his legal representatives on record and the application was allowed. However, the records were not physically corrected to give effect to the order and while deciding the appeal the title of the appeal memo showed the name of the deceased­Dattu Tukaram Khole as one of the appellants. Subsequent to the decision of the appeal, the respondents herein (i.e. appellants in the appeal) made an application for making necessary corrections in the records of the Court by writing names of the heirs of deceased Dattu Tukaram Khole in the memo of the appeal and the decree passed in the appeal. By the order dated 8th October, 2009 the application was allowed. That order is impugned in this petition. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the order was passed without notice to them. It appears that the notice was issued to the petitioner but could not be served on them personally. Therefore, a substitute service was allowed and accordingly, notice of the application was served on the respondents by a public notice. In the circumstances, in my view there is no merit in the contention that the notice was not served on the respondents as they were served by a public notice in pursuance of the order of the court. spb/- 3 wp7229-10.sxw 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the appeal was decided on 21.04.1992. The application for amendment and correction in the appeal memo and in the decree was made on 27th June, 2002 and therefore, was barred by limitation. The application was made within two months of the decision of the appeal and it cannot be said that the application was barred by limitation. No other point was urged. 5 There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]