( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 597 OF 2002 Shaikh Jilani s/o Shaikh Mehboob R/o Gadwad, Tq. & Dist. Latur. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. 2. Nama s/o Kera Mang Since deceased, by L.R. Bajirao s/o Nama Gaikwad, R/o Gadwad, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 3. Hanumant Shaligram Marwadi, R/o as above. 4. Rama Tukaram Gaikwad Since deceased, abated. 5. Lochanabai w/o Raosaheb Kadam, R/o Gadwad, Tq. & Dist. Latur. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Patil, advocate for respondent No.2. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th June, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. BY this petition, the petitioner challenges ( 2 ) order dated 21st December, 2001 rendered in File No. 6/D/99/L whereby restoration of the appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) has been declined. 2. The petitioner filed appeal before the M.R.T. challenging order rendered by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Records), Latur in File No. 1995/TNC/A/CR-19. The said appeal was scheduled for hearing on 04-01-1999. The learned advocate for the petitioner was unable to attend the matter due to his personal difficulties. The appeal was dismissed by the M.R.T. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for restoration of the appeal. He stated in the application that his advocate was unable to attend since he had gone out of station to attend some personal work. The restoration application came to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner did not pray for setting aside the abatement order in respect of the respondent No. 3 and only sought restoration. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) 4. It appears that the petitioner was required to take steps for due service on respondent No. 4 in the appeal and to take further steps to bring legal representatives of the respondent No. 3 therein who had reportedly died on 24-07-1998. Thus, the appeal came to be dismissed in default due to the technical defect of non-substitution of the legal representatives of the respondent No. 3 therein and the omission to take steps for service on the respondent No. 4 therein. The technical defect could be considered when the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that he was out of station due to certain urgent personal work. Mr. Ashtekar states that he had no intention to avoid to appear before the M.R.T. on the given date, but was required to go out of station due to some unavoidable circumstances. Mr. B.N. Patil vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that immediate action was required to be taken after the death of the original respondent No. 3 in the appeal before the M.R.T. 5. True, the petitioner did not immediately take ( 4 ) steps to file an application for substitution, even then, the application could be filed under Order-XXII Rule-9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The dismissal of the matter involving question pertaining to immovable property could be avoided. It would have been appropriate to grant atleast one adjournment suo motu to take steps and conditional order could be passed. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The appeal shall be restored to the extent of the petitioner and be heard by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal expeditiously. No costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP597-02