1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2565 OF 2003 Balu Tukaram Koli (since deceased through his L.Rs.) Nathuram Balu Koli & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Vithal Dnyanu Pawar & anr. ... Respondents Mr.L.S.Gaikwad for the petitioners. Nr,Uday P. Warunjikar for the respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition contending that the order was passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (in short, the M.R.T.) against a person who had died much before the order was passed. The petitioners are the heirs of Balu Tukaram Koli who was arrayed as the respondent landlord before the M.R.T. He died on 26.8.1995 and the order of the M.R.T. has been passed on 29.8.2001. 2 It appears that the fact that Balu Tukaram Koli had died was not brought to the notice of the respondents herein under Order 22 Rule 10A. The death of a party must be communicated to the Court by his advocate. It appears that, in the present case, there was no such communication nor did the petitioners indicate to the respondents herein that Balu Tukaram Koli had expired. 2. However, since the impugned order has been passed against a person who had died six years before the order was passed, in my view, the order must be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order in the Revision Application No.MRT-NS-IX-7/93 is set aside. 3. The revision application is remanded to the M.R.T. The respondents herein may seek before the M.R.T. necessary orders to carry out the amendment to the application pending. The M.R.T. is requested to dispose of the revision application within 12 weeks from today. 4. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. ..... 3