:1: 907.ca.165.09 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.165 of 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.715 OF 1991 Shri.Rajaram R.Pansare ..Appellant Vs. Smt.Sundarabai V. Matele and ors ..Respondents And Shri.Bhaguji R.Pansare and ors ..Proposed Respondents Mr. Baig Mozabbas i/b Mr. Rajiv L. Patil, for Appellant . Mr. V. S. Gokhale, for Respondent. CORAM :- G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE :- 24TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- This is a Civil Application filed for bringing the heirs of the deceased Respondent No.3- Bhaguji Ranuji Pansare on record and for setting aside the abatement of the Second Appeal as against deceased Respondent No.3. The Civil Application is beyond time by 9 years and 139 days and a prayer for condonation of delay has been made. 2. Respondent No.7 herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 1973 :2: 907.ca.165.09 in which Bhaguji Pansare was brought on record as one of the heirs of the deceased Defendant No.2. The suit was decreed and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2A to 2F filed Civil Appeal No.178 of 1982 against that Decree in the District Court at Pune, which was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, the Appellant being original Defendant No. 2(d) in the Suit and Appellant No.5 in Civil Appeal No.178 of 1982 in District Court has filed the present Second Appeal which is admitted. Deceased- Respondent No.3 was thus apparently one of the heirs of original defendant No.2 along with the Appellant and when he died on 21.02.1995, the Appellant and Respondent Nos.4 to 6 who are the remaining heirs of deceased Defendant No.2 were already on record, and hence, the estate of deceased Respondent No.3 was duly represented. 4. The Appellant has given reasons for delay in paragraph Nos. 5 to 7 of the Civil Application. The Respondent No.7-original Plaintiff has been served with the notice of the Civil Application. No affidavit/reply for opposing the Civil Application has been filed. The explanation for delay is plausible and even otherwise since some of the heirs of deceased Respondent No.3 are already on record, Appellant has made out good case for condoning delay. The proposed Respondent Nos.3A to 3D have :3: 907.ca.165.09 entered their appearance and have not opposed this Civil Application. Hence Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (D), (A) and (B). The Appellant shall carry out the necessary amendment in the cause tittle of the memo of Appeal within four weeks. 5. Since no other Civil Application is pending in the Appeal, the Appeal may be listed for final hearing in due course. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.) :4: 907.ca.165.09