1 14-cas-568-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj CIVIL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.35 OF 2010 Shri Vithoba L. Bandkar & Another .. Applicants. V/s. Shri Appa K. Sarang & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Mahesh Chandanshiv i/b. M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates, for Applicants. Mr. G. C. Sawant, for Respondent No.5. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2 On 7th September, 2011, following order was passed:­ “ Confirmed with the fact that Respondent No.11(A) Ganpat Vithoba Sarang had died on 15/7/2009 and Respondent No.11(F) Bebi Vithoba Sarang died on 7/4/2009, both prior to the Judgment and Order dated 29/8/2009 passed by the District Court, the Advocate for the Applicants seeks 2 14-cas-568-2010.sxw time of two weeks to place the date of closing the arguments in the Appeal in the District Court. Stand over after two weeks. Leave to amend and correct the date in line 2 of para­1 of the C.A. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.” 3 The Advocate of the Applicants has carried out amendment in line no.2 of paragraph 1, but instead of 29.8.2009, being correct date, 29.8.2007 is wrongly written. Even that amendment to be carried out forthwith in the Court. 4 The Advocate for Applicants states that the arguments in the Civil Appeal No.45 of 2007 were concluded on 28th August, 2009. The statement is not disputed and the same is accepted. The impugned Judgment is delivered on 28th August, 2009. 5 Considering the above facts, it is clear that as against Respondent No.11­A Ganpat V. Sarang, there was no abatement of the Appeal in the District Court, since the Appeal was decided prior to expiry of 90 days from his death. As against Respondent No.11­F­ Bebi V. Sarang there is a statement in the Civil Application that she died unmarried. Appellant as also Respondents in the Second Appeal are her brothers and sisters. Hence, her estate was duly represented in the District Court and, hence, there is no abatement. 3 14-cas-568-2010.sxw 6 Considering the aforesaid discussion, there is no question of delay in filing this Civil Application. Prayer clause (a) is redundant. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). Amendment in the title of Second Appeal to be carried out forthwith in the Court. 7 Since notice before admission was issued in the Second Appeal on 15th February, 2010, issue notice to added Respondent No.11­A­I­ Santosh Ganpat Sarang, returnable after ten weeks. 8 In addition to service through Court, Advocate of the Applicants is also permitted to send private notice by RPAD or Speed Post AD and file Affidavit of Service only if acknowledgment is received or postal envelope is returned with remark “refused.” 9 The learned Advocate for Respondent states that Respondent No.4­A has died recently and has placed the death certificate on record and states that he will inform the names of heirs to the Advocate for Applicants so as to enable him to take appropriate steps. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)