1 WP 4359/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2011 Vivek Namdev Ankalikar & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Channappa Parisa Kamble & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Manoj Patil for the petitioners. Mr. Deshinge i/b Mr. Vijay Killedar for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 8TH JULY 2011 P.C. : 1. The petitioners claim to be heirs and legal representatives of Rukmini Namdev Kamble who was defendant no.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaisingpur. Rukmini died on 21st February 2007 but the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) did not take any steps for bringing her heirs on record. The suit thus stood abated against Rukmini. The petitioners therefore made an application purporting to be an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure for joining themselves as parties to the suit. The application was rejected by an order dated 24th January 2011. That order is impugned in the present petition. 2 WP 4359/2011 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, who claim to be heirs of Rukmini, submits that the petitioners are the necessary parties to the suit inasmuch as the suit is for partition of a property in which Rukmini has a share. On death of Rukmini, her share has been inherited by the petitioners and as they have an interest in the property, they are necessary parties to the suit. 3. The suit against Rukmini has abated. The plaintiff – respondent no.1 has not taken any steps for setting aside the abatement and bringing her heirs on record at his own risk. The plaintiff – respondent no.1 has also opposed the application for bringing the heirs of Rukmini on record at his own risk and peril. If the Court comes to the conclusion that Rukmini (and on her death her heirs) are necessary parties to the suit, the Court would dismiss the suit for want of necessary parties. Assuming that a decree is passed in the suit in which the present petitioners are not the parties, it would not be binding on the petitioners. 4. In view of the aforesaid position, it is not necessary to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court. Writ petition is 3 WP 4359/2011 accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)