1 W. P. No. 11504/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11504 OF 2010 Ravindra Ramdas Patil .. Petitioner Versus 1. Vishwanath Dhanu Mahajan and another .. Respondents Shri V. B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 21ST DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died on 09.11.2007. The counsel further submits that, in R.C.S. No. 29/1994 counter claim was filed by the father of the petitioner. After death of the father of the petitioner no steps were taken by the petitioner to bring him on record. As a result of said, counter claim stood abated. The petitioner herein filed application before the Trial Court. The counsel further submits that application filed by the petitioner to continue the suit on behalf of deceased 2 W. P. No. 11504/2010 defendant No. 2 was rejected by the Trial Court. According to the counsel for the petitioner said order rejecting his application is impermissible. Said application was filed before the date of pronouncement of judgment. Therefore, the counsel submits that the writ petition requires to be allowed. The counsel further informed this Court that, the petitioner is likely to file application before the Court for setting aside abatment order in the counter claim. 2. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of impugned order, it is clearly appears that the petitioner did not take the steps till the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment. It appears from the impugned order, the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment on 06.12.2010 and application came to be filed on behalf of petitioner on the said day. In my opinion, this is not the matter where this Court should invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the application filed by the petitioner was on the date on which matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment, hence writ petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that, this writ petition is dismissed merely on the ground that application by the petitioner was filed before Trial 3 W. P. No. 11504/2010 Court on the date when matter was listed for pronouncement of the judgment and not on merits. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Dec. 10