1 WP No.5887/10 Mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5887 of 2010 Kartik Ganghadhar Bhat ... Petitioner versus Namdev Raghoba Wagh & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. Tejesh Dande for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 2nd August 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 29 April 2010 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune allowing the application made by Nirmala – wife of the original plaintiff for bringing the heirs of the original plaintiff on record. 2. Nirmala, wife of the original plaintiff was acting as his Power of Attorney. Against an interlocutory order passed in a suit, an appeal was filed in the District Court during the pendency of which the original plaintiff died. An application was made in the District Court for bringing the heirs of deceased plaintiff on record of the appellate court and they were brought on record. After the decision of the appeal, the matter was sent back to the trial court wherein another application was made for bringing the heirs of deceased plaintiff on record of the suit. Request was opposed but was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved defendant is before this Court. 2 WP No.5887/10 3. Counsel for the petitioner – original defendant submitted that heirs ought to have been brought on record in the suit also and by merely bringing the heirs on record in appeal, the delay in making an application in the suit cannot be condoned. The submission is devoid of merit. When the appeal was pending, record is ordinarily called for by the appellate court. As such, heirs could not have made an application in the trial court. Furthermore, the object of bringing the heirs on record is to continue the proceedings by or against the legal heirs. Once the heirs were brought on record in appeal, bringing them on record again in the trial court after the decision of the Miscellaneous Application was only a formality. 4. The argument that heirs ought to have been brought on record separately in the appeal as well as in the suit is only a technical argument. If the technicality is to be observed then present petition itself is technically incorrect and not maintainable inasmuch as Nirmala – the applicant in the trial court has not been made a party to the writ petition. In the title of the writ petition, the respondent is shown as “Namdeo Raghunath Wagh” through his power of attorney Nirmala and Nirmala is not shown as an heir of Namdeo. Writ Petition is filed against a deceased person through a power of attorney holder. The Power of Attorney had come to an end on death and writ petition could not have been filed in the name of the deceased. Petitioner has also committed a technical error in the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ petition which is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)