1 13-cas-1133-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1133 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1134 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1135 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.410 OF 1991 Namdeo D. Yadav .. Applicant V/s. Laxman S. Kadam .. Respondent. Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Applicant. Mr. Mahesh Rawool i/b. Mr. P. B. Shah, for the Respondent. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2 While admitting Second Appeal, it appears that common conditional order was passed on 4th March, 2002, dispensing printing and which directs to file private Paper Book within eight weeks, failing which the Appeal shall stand dismissed for non­prosecution. Paper Book was not filed by the litigants and the Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. 3 Civil Application No.1135 of 2010 has been filed for bringing 2 13-cas-1133-2010.sxw heir of deceased sole Respondent who has died on 9th March, 2009 and there is no dispute that the heir has been served. 4 Civil Application No.1134 of 2010 is filed for bringing heir of deceased Applicant No.2 – Shamrao D. Yadav on record who had died on 23rd August, 2002. 5 Civil Application No.1135 of 2010 is filed by the Original Applicant No.1 alone for restoration. It is also not in dispute that the Paper Book has been filed and, hence, the original order dated 4th March, 2002 has been compiled with. 6 All the applications are vehemently opposed and one of the heir of Respondent has filed Affidavit in all the applications. The learned Advocate for the Applicants in all the Civil Applications has pointed out that since the common conditional order was passed, the same could not be noticed and was not complied with. He further pointed out that Original Applicant No.2­ Shamrao Yadav was looking after the litigation and after his death, Applicant No.1 was the heir of deceased Shamrao Yadav and was not aware about the litigation which has resulted in delay. The learned Advocate for the Respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that no explanation is given for the delay particularly for bringing heir of deceased Applicant No.2 on record. 7 I have carefully considered the submissions. Applicant No.1 is a senior citizen and agriculturist from the remote village. Further fact that 3 13-cas-1133-2010.sxw the heir of deceased Shamrao is staying in the same remote village is not disputed. Shamrao Yadav had died in the year 2002 when his widow was about 31 years old and his children except the married daughter, were minor. It is not unnatural that neither the widow nor the minor children and the married daughter would be aware about the pending litigation. There is nothing to disbelieve the correctness of the contention of Applicants that Shamrao was looking after litigation. 8 In view of this, in my opinion, the reasons for delay have been duly explained. The order regarding filing of Paper Book has been complied with. Hence, the case for restoration of the Second Appeal and bringing heir of the deceased Respondent and deceased Original Applicant to be brought on record is made out, subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/­. Cumulative costs to be paid to the heirs of deceased Respondent within four weeks from today. 9 Amendment in the title of the Second Appeal to be carried out within two weeks from today. 10 Mr. Shah waives service on behalf of Respondent who have been now added as Respondent in the Second Appeal. 11 Second Appeal to be listed for final hearing according to its own turn. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)