1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6382 OF 2009 Natha Laxman Gharge (deceased) by heirs Dattatraya Tukaram Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Rajaram Aba Gharge (deceased) by heirs Ravinda Rajaram Gharge & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.J.Patil for the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for respondent Nos.1A,1B,2B to 2D. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are original defendant Nos.2 and 3. The 1 st and 2 nd respondents are the original plaintiffs in a suit filed in the year 1969. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 15 th June 2009 by which an application made by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents for setting aside the abatement and for bringing on record the legal representatives of the 1 st 2 defendant has been allowed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that there is a long delay of 19 years in applying for setting aside the abatement. He pointed out that all along the 1 st and 2 nd respondents were aware that the 1 st defendant was survived by his widow as the said widow was a party to revenue proceedings. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error by accepting the case made out by the plaintiffs that they were not aware that the 1 st defendant is survived by a legal representative. He submitted that the original plaintiffs have come out with a false case. He, therefore, submitted that such a long delay could not have been condoned. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. On the face of it the delay appears to be fairly long. However, it must be noted that the suit filed by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents was dismissed in the year 1975. An appeal was preferred against the said decree by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents which was allowed. The Second 3 Appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition was filed by the petitioners before the Apex Court which came to be decided on 06 th January 1995 in which order of remand was passed. It is pertinent to note that the 1 st defendant died on 22 nd November 1989. On that day the suit was not pending. At that time the Special Leave Petition filed by the deceased defendant No.1 himself and the present petitioners was pending. It was for the petitioners to bring the heirs of the deceased 1 st defendant on record in the Special Leave Petition. Though the Special Leave Petition was disposed of in the year 1995 by passing order of remand, the record of the suit was received by the trial Court in the year 2005. Considering these aspects, the trial Court has passed discretionary order of condoning the delay and setting aside abatement. It is pertinent to note that the legal representative of the 1 st defendant submitted her no objection in writing for condoning delay and for setting aside the abatement. 4 4. No interference is called for with the impugned order in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)