1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 429 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2008 Shri Ramchandra Hari Pawar ... Appellant Vs. Shri Uttam Nivruti Pawar & Ors. ... Respndents Shri Umesh Mankapure, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Pushkarini P. Kulkarni, i/b. Shri K.S.Patil, Advocate for the respndent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 16th October,2009. P.C. By order dated 22nd September, 2009, the Application was allowed and the L.Rs. of respndent No.6 and 10 were directed to be brought on record. Another application for bringing L.Rs. Of respondent No.6 was made which was also given the same number i.e. C.A. No.429 of 2009. That application was also allowed by the common order. However, now the Advocate for the appellant states that the name of the respondent No.6 was to be deleted and his L.Rs. Were not to be brought on record. In fact, the title of that application shows that it was an application for bringing the L.Rs. of respondent No.6. The names of the L.Rs. Of respondent No.6 are also given in para 3 of that application. In prayer clause (b), a request was made for condonation of delay and also for setting aside the 2 abatement order. However, it appears that by prayer clause (d), a direction was sought to delete the name of respondent No.6. At the time of passing the order, the learned Counsel has only requested for a direction to bring L.Rs. of respondent no.6 on record and accordingly order came to be passed. Now the learned Counsel contends that the order may be modified and the name of the respondent No.6 be allowed to be deleted. 2. In view of this prayer, the order dated 22.9.2009 stands modified to the extent of deceased respondent no.6. The name of respondent No.6 is allowed to be deleted. Amendment be effected in the title of the Appeal Memo accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)