1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application No. 363 of 1995 [R.R. Malani Vs. Smt. Shafiabi Sherkhan & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the applicants- petitioners. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 [i] to 1 [vii]. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 02nd May,2008. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner herein is Defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 1984. 3. On 2nd January, 1995, Shafiyabi and Husnabi, who are defendant nos. 5 and 6, filed an application for being transposed in place of plaintiff Hafizabi, who died on 4th December, 1994. 4. This application was opposed by present petitioner with say, which reads as follows:- “Say The present intended defts. are already on record as deft. No. 2 6 & 7. Hence appl. is false frivolous. Hence heavy cost may kindly be saddled. Sd/-Illegible.” 5. The learned Trial Judge passed order which contains factual aspect which reads as follows:- “1. .....Here admitted position is that Applicant No.1 and 2 [Original Defendant No. 6 & 7] are the daughter of deceased Plaintiff Hafijabi and are accordingly her legal heirs. ....”, and finding which reads as follows:- “2. .....Having considered all these aspects I am of the view that the present Applicants have every right to be arrayed themselves as Plaintiffs and further cause of action also survive in their favour being legal heirs of deceased Hafijabi. ....” 6. In the body of petition, the factuality of defendant nos. 6 and 7 being legal heirs is not disputed. All that is urged is that in earlier Civil Suit No. 254 of 1959 they were the defendants and they would be bound by the decree in relation to which Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 1984 is filed. 7. The ground raised in the petition is the defence in the suit, and cannot be a ground to oppose the application under Order 22 of 3 Civil Procedure Code. 8. In the circumstances, Civil Revision Application has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application Nos. 5988 and 5989 of of 2007 IN Civil Revision Application No. 363 of 1995 [R.R. Malani Vs. Smt. Shafiabi Sherkhan & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the applicant- petitioner. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 [i] to 1 [vii]. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 02nd May,2008. 1. Heard. 2. These applications are for bringing on record legal representatives and for setting aside abatement of respondent nos. 2 and 6 [viii]. 3. The respondents, whose legal representatives are sought to be brought on record, were not the contesting defendants, and had acquiesced with the impugned order. It is, therefore, unnecessary to waste time in hearing these applications and bringing the said legal 5 representatives on record. 4. Both these applications are, therefore, disposed of. Judge |Hedau|