( 1 ) ca2197.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2197 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 3871 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 27424 OF 2001 Banubai Vanabai w/o. Dayaram Pachpande & Ors... Applicants Versus Kashinath Murlidhar Patil (dead) & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant Nos.1,2,4,5,6B to 6E. Mr.Girish Rane, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1A to 1E and 5A to 5C. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10.06.2011 P.C. :- 1. The Second Appeal was filed in 2001 and after the notices were sent for service, the Bailiff’s report showed that respondent No.2 had died long before the date of filing of the appeal. It is thus clear that the appeal was filed against a dead person. But apparently, the appellant was not aware of this fact. The appellant became aware of this fact only after receipt of the Bailiff’s report and within three years therefrom present application is made for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2. The ( 2 ) ca2197.09 application is opposed mainly because the application is hopelessly time barred. 2. I am not inclined to accept this objection because apparently the appellant became aware of death of respondent No.2 only from the contents of the Bailiff’s report. Since the deceased person is not a client of appellants’ advocate, he is not supposed to know about his death. Even otherwise had the appellant been aware about the death of respondent No.2, on the day of filing of the appeal, they would have easily mentioned so in the cause title and impleaded his legal representatives. Had such steps been taken, other respondents would not have any opportunity to oppose the appeal on such technical ground. The applications are, therefore, allowed. The delay is condoned. The legal representatives of respondent No.2 be impleaded. The amendment be caused to the appeal memo within two weeks. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/JUN11/ca2197.09