- 1 - 29-caw-1827-2011 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1827 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5758 OF 1998 Smt. Sonabai J. Chavan (since deceased) through her Legal Heir- 1A- Pushpa P. Chavan & Others .. Applicants. V/s. Smt. Mathurabai P. Sathe .. Respondent. Mr. Manish Pabale, for Applicants. Ms. Takalkar i/b. Mr. Nitin Deshpande, for Respondents. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1 This is a unique case where the persons claiming to be heirs of Original Respondent in the Writ Petition have filed the Civil Application for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the delay of 485 days in presenting this Civil Application be condoned in the interest of justice; - 2 - 29-caw-1827-2011 (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose off the Petition as abated; (c) In the alternative of above present applicants be allowed to come on record as legal heirs of the Respondent and their case may be heard on merits.” 2 The learned Advocate for the Original Petitioner holding for Mr. Nitin Deshpande states that she has no objection for allowing the prayer clauses (a) and (c), but opposes prayer clause (b). 3 It is not disputed that the Original Petitioner- Mathurabai Sathe and the Original Respondent – Smt. Sonabai J. Chavan have died. No application for substituting the heirs and/or legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner and Respondent have been filed till today by the heirs and/or legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner and Respondent. Though the learned Advocate for the Original Petitioner states that she has no objection for granting prayer clauses (a) and (c) unless and until the names of heirs of Original Petitioner in the Writ Petition and their addresses etc., are available, this Civil Application cannot be allowed. 4 Hence, relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) is rejected. However, relief in terms of prayer clause (b) deserves to be granted and, - 3 - 29-caw-1827-2011 hence, this Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 5 Writ Petition is disposed off. 6 However, this will not preclude the heirs of the Original Petitioner from filing appropriate application for bringing the heirs of the deceased Petitioner and Respondents on record and for revival of the Writ Petition. As and when application is filed, same will be considered on its own merits. 7 It is clarified that on account of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted in the Writ Petition on 9th February, 1999 has comes to an end and is hereby vacated. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)