WP. 4162-11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4162 OF 2011 M/s. Thakur Shipping Co. & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Faredoon M. Dalal & Ors. ... Respondents *** Mr. P. S.Dani i/b Kiran Jain & Co. , for the Petitioners. Mr. Venkatesh Dhond with Ms. Ferzana Behrankandin i/b FZB Associates, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5B. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 1 to 5B. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court dated 19th November, 2010, was partly allowed. By the said order, the application filed by the respondent for bringing on record heirs of respondent No. 1 and also for amendment of the appeal memo and plaint was allowed but prayer for adding certain proposed respondents/ proposed defendants to the appeal & suit was rejected. WP. 4162-11 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that defendant No. 1 expired in 2001. Initially, the application was filed in 2005. The said application was rejected and while rejecting the said application, the court observed that the application was defective and delay was not properly explained. This order was challenged in the High Court and the High Court permitted the respondents to withdraw the said application with liberty to file fresh application. It is submitted that the said order was passed in 2006. This order, thereafter, was modified in 2008 and thereafter the application was filed in 2009. It is submitted that there was delay of three years in filing the application, after this Court had permitted the respondents to file a fresh application. It was submitted that the lower appellate court, however, came to the conclusion that the delay had to be calculated from the date on which order is modified. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the impugned order. 3. I have perused the impugned order. In my view, the lower appellate court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that respondent’s advocate had expired and the new advocate appointed was unwell and after taking into consideration all these aspects, the delay was condoned. WP. 4162-11 - 3 - The discretion vested in the court was exercised by the lower appellate court and the delay was condoned. In my view, it will not be possible to interfere with the said order while exercising the limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE, J.]