1 CRA-21/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2010 Chandrabhaga Keshav Govind Lingawale and ors. ..Applicants. Vs. Amarnath Erknath Lingawale and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R.M. Haridas, Advocate for the Petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1st October, 2010. P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. The applicants are the defendants in a suit filed by the predecessor of the respondents in the court of Small Causes. The original plaintiff died on 17th January, 1995. As the heirs were not brought on record, an order of abatement was passed on 4th March, 1996. 2 A notice was taken out by the applicants before the court of Small Causes by contending that as the order of abatement has not been set aside, the suit stands abated. Notice was discharged by the Small Causes Court by passing the impugned order and the Revision Application made by the applicants was rejected by the Appellate Court. 2 CRA-21/10 3 The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no specific order passed by the Trial Court for setting aside the abatement. He submitted that there was no prayer for setting aside the abatement in the notice taken out by the Respondents for bringing their names on record of the suit. I have considered the submissions. Misc. Notice No.3591 of 1996 was taken out for bringing the heirs of the deceased Plaintiff on record. The original plaintiff died on 17th January, 1995 and the said notice was taken out on 4th August, 1995. While deciding the said notice, the Trial Court condoned the delay in filing the notice. It is, therefore, obvious that the abatement was set aside by the Trial Court. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the abatement was not set aside cannot be accepted. Hence, Civil Revision application is rejected. Judge