( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1778 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 1991 Shri Hanumantrao Govindrao Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and others. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Vinod Patil, advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. V.T. Choudhary, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th March, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay and substitution of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 Bhagwant. There is delay of 4083 days in filing of the application. The death of respondent No. 3 Bhagwant occurred, on 31-08-1998. The applicant alleges that he did not come to know about death of the respondent No. 3. He alleges that he is approximately 83 years old and is residing at Nasik since about 25 years. Therefore, he had no knowledge about the death of the respondent ( 2 ) No. 3 which occurred at Chopda in Jalgaon district. He came to know about the death at belated stage and thereafter filed application, when he could collect the death certificate. 2. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 object the application on the ground of delay. They submit that the applicant committed unreasonable delay notwithstanding his knowledge about death of the respondent No. 3. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. It is well settled that liberal approach is required to be taken in the matter pertaining to substitution of legal representatives. The Apex Court in “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others” (AIR 1987 S.C. 1353), held that delay could be condoned where the applicant furnished adequate reasons. 5. In the present case, the respondents’ advocate did not give intimation about the death of respondent No. 3 as required under Order-XXII Rule-10A of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no denial to the fact that the applicant resides at Nasik since many years. It is natural that he could not gain information about the death of the respondent No. 3 well in time. The reasons ( 3 ) stated in the application would show that the applicant is litigating since many years and is octogenarian. The old man like him may not be in contact with the local residents of Chopda to know about the day-today affairs. Under these circumstances, the delay appears to be unintentional and sufficient reasons are ascribed for the same. 6. For the reasons aforestated, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. The abatement is set aside. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 shall be taken on record by causing suitable amendment in the cause title of the petition and thereafter, the petition be fixed for final hearing on 18th March, 2010. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca1778.2010