gst 1 wp3884.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 3884 OF 2010. Nivrutti Bhagwant Khopade & Ors. ... ... ...Petitioners. V/s Pandurang Dhakya Meghawat & Ors. .. ... ..Respondents. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.P.J.Pawar, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 to 32. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 17th March, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for hearing. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.4.10 below Ex.103 vide which the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Pune has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner in RCS No.1162/09 for bringing legal representatives of deceased defendant No.25 on record and for amending the plaint. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for temporary injunction against the 32 defendants. After filing of the suit a pursis came to be filed below Ex.102 by defendant No.27 intimating them that defendant No.25 has already expired. As such the application came to be filed by the present petitioner for bringing legal representatives of deceased defendant No.25 and for amendment of plaint. Said application is rejected. Hence the present petition. 4. Shri Deshpande learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that immediately after petitioners were brought to the notice of the fact about death of defendant No.25 the necessary steps for bringing legal gst 2 wp3884.10.sxw representatives on record and for consequential amendment were taken by the petitioner. He submits that learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. 5. Shri Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the contrary submits that the since the suit itself was filed against a dead person the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application holding that since the suit itself is filed against dead person application was not tenable. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Karuppaswamy & Ors., Vs. C.Ramamurthy, 1992 SC 2324 has an occasion to consider the case under the similar circumstances. The trial Court noticing the fact that the suit was filed against a dead person the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was rejected. In revision the High Court allowed the applications. In an Appeal before the Apex Court, the Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court after considering various judgments on the point. 7. In the present case also there is no finding of the learned trial Court that though the petitioner had the knowledge regarding death of defendant No.25 even prior to filing of suit the petitioners have not taken steps to implead legal representatives. In that view of the matter I find the learned trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application. Hence writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). gst 3 wp3884.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 3885 OF 2010. Nivrutti Bhagwant Khopade & Ors. ... ... ...Petitioners. V/s Pandurang Dhakya Meghawat & Ors. .. ... ..Respondents. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.P.J.Pawar, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 to 32. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 17th March, 2011 PC: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.3884/10 of even date nothing survives in this writ petition and therefore seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission granted. Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn.