:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1323 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1323 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1323 OF 2006 Kashinath Baburao Gaikwad & Ors ..Petitioners V/s The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Ashuthosh Gole h/f A.A. Garge for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Khandeparkar h/f R.G. Ketkar for the respondent No.1. Mr.R.M. Pethe for repsondent Nos. 2 to 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2008 : 13TH JUNE, 2008 : 13TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. The two applications for condonation of delay by setting aside abatement and bringing legal heirs on record of the plaintiff No.2 as well as that of the plaintiff No.3 has been rejected by the trial Court. 2. There is delay of about 6 months in preferring the applications for condonation of delay and to bring the legal heirs on record. 3. The reasons given in the applications for the :2: delay are that the details of the legal heirs were given to the advocate of plaintiff No.4 and they were under the impression that the details of the death and legal heirs were given by him to the Advocate representing the plaintiffs and the necessary applications were filed by the Advocate in the Court. The petitioners have also taken a plea that the record and proceedings of the Lower Court were not available, as the same were called for by the District Court. 4. The respondents have on the other hand contended that the matter was kept for leading evidence and the date on which the record was called for was not the relevant period for which the condonation of delay is sought and the applications have been rightly rejected by the Trial Court as no sufficient cause was shown. 5. I have gone through the impugned order and material on record. It is noted that no reply was filed by the respondents to these application before the lower Court controverting the averments in the applications. It is noted that the application is :3: merely for bringing legal heirs on record and setting aside the abatement. In my view, this is not a case where the parties have acted malafide and tried to prolong the hearing of the appeal in as much as the applications are only to bring the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff No.2 and the deceased plaintiff No.3 on record. 6. In my view, the trial Court in the facts of the case ought to have been more pragmatic in its approach in deciding the applications and had erred in dismissing the applications. The impugned order is thus set aside and the delay is condoned and the petitioners are permitted to bring the heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 3 on record subject to costs of Rs. 3000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Amendment to be carried out within 4 weeks. 7. Writ petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)