: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2006 Mohammed Adil Attarwala .. ..Petitioner Versus Madhavlal N. Pittie & Ors. .. ..Respondents Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for petitioner Mr.A.K.Abhyankar i/b M/s.D.J.Kamdin & Co.for respondent no.1 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J. DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2006 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 2. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith by consent. : 2 : 3. The petitioner-defendant has preferred this petition against the judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 3.2.2006 in Int. Notice No.1500 of 2001 in R.A.E.Suit No.351/742/1998. 4. After hearing both the parties for some time, it is obvious that the said interim notice was pertaining to the prayer for brining the legal heirs of deceased-tenant on record. The learned trial judge, it appears from the reasoning adopted by him, was of the view that the application could not be under Order 22 Rule 4 nor any provisions of Limitation Act would come into play but the matter would be governed by the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. In my considered view, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the application to bring the legal heirs of defendant no.1 on record could be dealt with under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. 6. Under the circumstances, I have no option but to remand the matter back to the trial court to adjudicate the notice in proper perspective applying the correct : 3 : proposition of law after giving opportunity to both sides to be heard. 7. Hence, rule is made absolute. The order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court with direction that the matter should be heard and adjudicated within a period of three months from the date of this order. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. 8. With this direction the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.