1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAO NO. 74/2009 WITH 73/2009 & MCA (Rest.) NO. 845/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5610/2007 (The Executive Engineer vs. Ananda Mahadeo Uike through LRs & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 30, 2009. Heard Shri Doifode, learned AGP for the applicant/ petitioner and Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the respondent. All Civil Applications are taken up together with the consent of parties. Civil Application No. 74 of 2009 is for permission to bring legal representatives of deceased Respondent on record. Civil Application No. 73 of 2009 is for condonation of delay in bringing said legal representatives on record and MCA No. 845 of 2009 is for recalling the order dated 24.04.2008 and for restoration of Writ Petition No. 5610 of 2007. It appears that on 24.4.2008, this Court granted time to the petitioner (present applicant) to take appropriate steps to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. As those steps could not be taken, ultimately, the matter was dismissed. The learned AGP points out that the deceased 2 original respondent expired on 6.12.2007 and intimation of his death was received by the office of the Government Pleader on 30.04.2008. Thereafter, necessary particulars were collected and then application for restoration was moved on 06.09.2008. The application for condonation of delay and for leave to bring legal representatives on record were also moved. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent is strongly opposing the prayers. He contends that there is absolutely no justification given and the deceased was a labour who was directed to be reinstated without any back wages. He points out that there is no separate application for setting aside abatement and application for condonation of delay in setting aside abatement. After hearing parties, we find that the reasons given by the applicant for inability to bring legal representatives on record are genuine and there are no malafides in the matter. Though technical objections raised by Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel are correct, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the view that joint applications moved in such matters can also be permitted provided appropriate court fees are paid. Writ Petition was filed some times in the year 2007 and the respondent expired after filing of writ petition. In these circumstances, we condone the delay and permit the legal representatives of respondent to be brought on record in MCA. Shri Gaikwad, learned 3 counsel has appeared for those legal representatives. For the same reason, we also allow MCA No. 845 of 2009 and recall order dated 24.04.2008 and restore Writ Petition No. 5610 of 2007. However, all this is subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,200/- by the applicant/ petitioner to the respondent by 16th October 2009. If the costs are so paid, the office to restore writ petition and to place it for further consideration. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.