1 caw452.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 452 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2695 OF 1996 Mohanlal Beniram Kalal-Rai(Deceased) through Lrs. Smt. Parvati Mohanlal Kalal-Rai & ors. ....Applicants. Vs. Shri Gangaram Yamaji Mandale since deceased through his Lrs. Girjabai Gangaram Mandale & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Tushar Sonawane, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. V. Z. Kankaria, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C. 1. The widow and daughter of the deceased original Petitioner Mohanlal Beniram Kalal-Rai have filed this Civil Application for setting aside abatement and bringing them on record in place and instead of original Petitioner. Affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents indicates that apart from Applicants, the Deceased Mohanlal had two sons namely, Manoj and Raju who are not sought to be brought on record. On 2 caw452.11 28.3.2011 the learned Advocate for the Applicants was permitted to amend the Civil Application and add the names of the said two sons. No amendment is carried out till today. 2. The Advocate for the Applicants seeks further time to take instructions on the ground that the said two sons may not support the Applicants and may collude with the Respondents and ultimately states that the Applicants do not want them to be added as parties. 3. The prayer for seeking further time cannot be accepted particularly when there is no serious dispute that the said Manoj and Raju are sons of deceased Mohanlal Kalal-Rai. In view of this, apart from the Applicants being shown as Petitioner No. 1(A) and 1(B) in the tile of the Petition, the name of said Manoj Mohanlal Kalal-Rai and Raju Mohanlal Kalal-Rai, ahould also be added as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the title of the Writ Petition No. 2695 of 1996. Office to carry out said amendment. 4. In so far as the prayer of the Applicants for being substituted in place of the original Petitioner is concerned, the said prayer deserves to be granted. Accordingly, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 3 caw452.11 (b) and (c) with a clarification that this order will not be construed to mean that only the Applicants are entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises; and that question is expressly kept open to be decided at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. The Applicants are directed to carry out amendment in the title of the Writ Petition and also pay the requisite process charges and supply copies for service of notice on the added Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within 8 weeks from today, failing which the Writ Petition No. 2695 of 1996 shall be placed before the Court for direction regarding dismissal of the Writ Petition as against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and for passing consequential order in the Writ Petition. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)