1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 2008. 1. Vishnu Khushal Borole since deceased through his legal heirs : 1-A. Rohidas Vishnu Borole, Age 48 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 1-B. Vasudev Vishnu Borole, Age 41 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Ulhasnagar, Tq.Kalyan, Dist. Thane. 1-C. Ramesh Vishnu Borole, Age 34 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Kalyan, Tq.Kalyan, Dist. Thane. 1-D. Sau. Sunita Sunil Sarode, Age 27 years, Occ.Service, R/o Dombivali, Tq. Kalyan, Dist. Thane. 1-E. Shakuntala Vishnu Borole, Age 64 years, Occ.Household, R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon. 1-F. Mankarnabai Khushal Borole, Age 85 years,Occ.Household, R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 2 2. Girdhar Khushal Borole, Age 61 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Bansi S/o Sadashiv Patil, since deceased through his legal heirs : 1-A. Kishore S/o Bansi Patil, Age major, Occ.Not known, R/o Yashodhan Building, Near Shiva Hotel, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 1-B. Pramod Bansi Patil, Age major, Occ. Not known, R/o House No.335, Shani Peth, Behind Sevashram, Jalgaon. Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. 1-C. Arun Bansi Patil, Age major, Occ.Not known, R/o Shani Peth, Behind Sevashram, Jalgaon, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon. 1-D. Vijaya Ashok Patil, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Shrikrishna Colony, Khajamiya Plot No.16, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents. (In view of Hon'ble Court's order dt.13.8.2009, W.P. stands dismissed as against Respondent No.1-D). ... 3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3128 OF 2008. 1. Vishnu Khushal Borole since deceased through his legal heirs : 1-A. Rohidas Vishnu Borole, Age 48 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 1-B. Vasudev Vishnu Borole, Age 41 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Ulhasnagar, Tq.Kalyan, Dist. Thane. 1-C. Ramesh Vishnu Borole, Age 34 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Kalyan, Tq.Kalyan, Dist. Thane. 1-D. Sau. Sunita Sunil Sarode, Age 27 years, Occ.Service, R/o Dombivali, Tq. Kalyan, Dist. Thane. 1-E. Shakuntala Vishnu Borole, Age 64 years, Occ.Household, R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon. 1-F. Mankarnabai Khushal Borole, Age 85 years,Occ.Household, R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Girdhar Khushal Borole, Age 61 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioners. Versus 4 1. Bansi S/o Sadashiv Patil, since deceased through his legal heirs : 1-A. Kishore S/o Bansi Patil, Age major, Occ.Not known, R/o Yashodhan Building, Near Shiva Hotel, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 1-B. Pramod Bansi Patil, Age major, Occ. Not known, R/o House No.335, Shani Peth, Behind Sevashram, Jalgaon. Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. 1-C. Arun Bansi Patil, Age major, Occ.Not known, R/o Shani Peth, Behind Sevashram, Jalgaon, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon. 1-D. Vijaya Ashok Patil, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Shrikrishna Colony, Khajamiya Plot No.16, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents. (In view of Hon'ble Court's order dt.13.8.2009, W.P. stands dismissed as against Respondent No.1-D). ... Mr.G.V.Wani, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Girish Rane, advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-C. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.03.2010. 5 PER COURT 1. These are two petitions of legal representatives of deceased Vishnu who was the original plaintiff and had filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.316/1994. The first Writ Petition is filed, challenging rejection of applications to condone delay and substitute legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.1 - Bansi Patil. Another Writ Petition is filed against orders rejecting the applications for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Vishnu and rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. I have gone through the relevant applications and the impugned orders. It appears that deceased Respondent No.1 Bansi died on 28.1.2005. The reply affidavit of the Respondents go to show that death of the Respondent No.1 Bansi was intimated as required U/o XXII Rule 10-A of the C.P.C. on 18.2.2005. 6 The application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1-B was filed on 2.1.2007. The delay of about two (2) years was not at all explained in the application. The application simply shows that the death of deceased Respondent No.l had occurred on 28.1.2005 and, therefore, the L.Rs. mentioned in the application may be substituted. Needless to say, the application (Exh.176) was moved as if there was no necessity to explain the delay and substitution of the names of the L.Rs. of the deceased Respondent No.1 could be effected as a matter of right. The application was opposed by the petitioner and was rejected by order dated 19.12.2007. It appears that subsequently, on 8.6.2007, the L.Rs. of deceased Vishnu (plaintiff) had moved yet another application alleging that the death was not known and the knowledge was gathered at late stage. This statement in the subsequent application (Exh.181) is totally incorrect. The Respondent had informed the Court about the death of deceased Respondent No.1 Bansi by filing a purshis - Exh.171 dated 18.2.2005. Under these 7 circumstances, in the absence of any tangible reason shown by the petitioners, the delay could not be condoned and the substitution of the L.Rs. of the deceased defendant No.1 could not have been permitted. There is no infirmity in the orders rendered by the trial Court. 4. Similarly, the petitioners submitted application (Exh.173) for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff - Vishnu. Said Vishnu died on 18.12.2005. The application was filed on 28.7.2006 without furnishing any kind of explanation as regards the delay. Again, by yet another application (Exh. 183) condonation of delay was sought on the ground that due to some unavoidable reasons the L.Rs. could not be substituted. What were the unavoidable reasons is not explained nor there could be any legal justification to assume bonafides of the petitioners. The rejection of their such applications also is well justified. The impugned orders are, therefore, quite legal and proper. 8 5. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp467196