1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2309 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2308 OF 2003IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 19581 OF 2002 Smt. Anjanabai Chandrakant Kamthe & Ors. ..Applicants (Heirs of org.Deft.No.1) Vs. Shri Prith Pal Singh Bharara & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.D.Soni, i/b. Mr. Vipin R.Kasle, Advocates for the applicants. Mr.Amit B.Borkar,Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th July, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. To state in brief, the respondent No.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No.187 of 1995 for specific performance of contract and injunction against the defendant no.1 Chandrakant Moru Kamthe and the present respondent nos. 2 to 4. The decree was passed on 1.8.2000. The applicants before this Court are the 2 legal heirs of original defendant No.1 Chandrakant. According to them, Chandrakant had died in 1995 and his L.rs. were not brought on record. Inspite of that the suit proceeded and the judgment was delivered on 1.8.2000. According to the applicants, they came to know about the said decree only in the beginning of the year 2002 when the Court bailiff came in connection with the execution of that decree and thereafter the applicants filed First Appeal Stamp No.19581 of 2002 with one application for condonation of delay and another application for leave to file appeal because the present applicants were not parties to the original proceedings. 3. The respondent No.l/original plaintiff has filed reply and contested the application. According to him, the respondent No.4, who was also defendant No.4 in the suit, is the son of original defendant no.1 and therefore, he was represented after his father’s death and therefore the suit could not abate even though the L.rs. were not brought on record. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No.4 was impleaded as defendant no.4 on the ground that he was holding power of attorney executed by his father Chandrakant Thus, he was impleaded as defendant No.4 and not as LR. of his father. After the death of defendant No.1, 3 no application was moved to bring his L.rs. on record. The present applicants are the widow and sons of deceased defendant no.1 Chandrakant. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to allow them to file the appeal and also to condone the delay. 5. In the circumstances, both these Applications are allowed. Leave to prefer appeal is granted. Delay in filing the appeal is also condoned. Both the Applications stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)