( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4290 OF 2005 Bhausaheb s/o Jagannath Shirsath, R/o Village Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Ahmednagar 2. The Tahsildar, Rahuri. 3. Keshav s/o Vitthal Shirsath, R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 4. Nivrutti Gangaram Shirsath Since deceased, by L.Rs. 4A. Ramesh s/o Nivrutti Shrisath 4B. Mohan s/o Nivrutti Shirsath 4C. Solochana w/o Gopichand Gaikwad 4D. Chandrakala Dattatraya Lambe, 4E. Vimal Laxman Kalhapure 4F. Mangal Madhukar Pawar 4G. Meena Balasaheb Karpe All r/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Pradeep Shridhar Shirsath R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Popat Balaji Shirsath Since deceased by L.Rs. 6A. Bapu Popat Shirsath 6B. Rambhau Popat Shirsath R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6C. Laxman Popat Shirsath Since deceased by L.Rs. ( 2 ) 6C-1 Smt. Latabai Laxman Shirsath 6C-2 Dnyaneshwar Laxman Shirsath R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 6C-3 Sau Geeta Sunil Gade, R/o Baradgaon, Nandur, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 6C-4 Bhagwat Laxman Shirsath, Being minor through guardian Respondent No. 6C-1 – mother - Smt. Latabai Laxman Shirsath. 6D. Vitthal Popat Shirsath 6E. Bhimabai Shantaram Gade 6F. Asha Laxman Dhakane 6G. Chhaya Bhimashankar Adhav 6H. Shewantabai Popat Shirsath R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Aurangabad. 7. Laxman Vishwanath Kokate Since deceased by L.Rs. 7A. Smt. Chandrakala Laxman Kokate 7B. Appasaheb Laxman Kokate 7C. Mahindra Laxman Kokate 7D. Bhagirathibai Vishwanath Kokate, R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 8. Eknath s/o Kisan Kokate R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 9. Gopinath Tatyaba Pawar Since deceased, by L.Rs. (L.Rs. Nos. 9A to 9F are deleted as per order dated 20-03-2009). 10. Subhash Dhondiram Pawar R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 11. Murlidhar Khandu Pawar Since deceased, by L.Rs. 11A. Smt. Suman Murlidhar Pawar Since deceased by L.Rs. (L.Rs. of this respondent are already on record as ( 3 ) respondents No. 11B to 11D) 11B. Ramesh Murlidhar Pawar 11C. Sau. Shaila Dattatraya Kapse, R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 11D. Sunita Ashok Gadakh, R/o Wambori, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 12. Ambadas Kashinath Kalhapure, Since deceased, by L.Rs. 12A. Ramdas Ambadas Kalhapure 12B. Laxman Ambadas Kalhapure 12C. Bhanudas Ambadas Kalhapure 12D. Appasaheb Ambadas Kalhapure 12E. Tanhabai Ambadas Kalhapure 12F. Paigabai Annasaheb Shirsath 12G. Mandabai Gangadhar Pathare R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 12H. Jijabai Tukaram Gagare, R/o Devlali Pravara, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 13. Ramdas Ambadas Kalhapure 14. Laxman Ambadas Kalhapure 15. Bhanudas Ambadas Kalhapure 16. Appasaheb Ambadas Kalhapure 17. Uttam Gopinath Kalhapure, R/o Deshwandi, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.P. Latange, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/State. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st February, 2010] ( 4 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned counsel and learned AGP. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order rendered by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), on applications for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 11. He had filed two applications for substitution, setting aside of the abatement and condonation of delay. The applications were dismissed by common order dated 08-09-2000. 3. The petitioner is original plaintiff. He filed applications alleging that defendant No. 11 died on 11-09-1997. He had no knowledge of law regarding necessity of substitution of the legal representatives. He was not knowing about death of the defendant No. 11 till recently before the filing of applications. Consequently, there took place delay in filing of the application for substitution of the legal ( 5 ) representatives of deceased defendant No. 11. The applications were opposed by the contesting defendants. They submitted that the reasons stated in the applications were insufficient. They pointed out that previously, the petitioner had taken due steps for substitution of the legal representatives of other defendants who had died during pendency of the suit. They submitted that considering the past conduct of the petitioner, his contention that he had no legal knowledge about necessity of substitution of the legal representatives is untrue. According to them, the delay was not condonable. 4. The trial Court held that reasons given by the petitioner were insufficient and, therefore, the applications were rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel Mr. Latange for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the State. None appeared for the other respondents. 6. The impugned order shows that the learned Civil ( 6 ) Judge referred to certain observations in “Union of India v. Ram Charan through his legal heirs” (AIR 1964 S.C. 215). The learned Civil Judge did not, however, consider impact of amended Rule-10A of Order-XXII of the Civil Procedure Code. The amendment is effected w.e.f. 01-02-1977. The legal position referred to by learned Civil Judge was of the period prior to such amendment. After the amendment of Order-XXII Rule-10A, it is duty of pleader to communicate to the Court about death of a party. In the present case, death of deceased defendant No. 11 was never reported to the Court by his advocate. There is no other material on record to show that the petitioner could have gathered such information about death of the defendant No. 11 immediately due to his close relationship, friendship or likewise reasons. In fact, his ignorance of law regarding necessity to substitute the legal representatives is not the main ground put forth in the application. He categorically stated in the application that the knowledge regarding death of the defendant No. 11 was recently received before filing of the application. In absence of any ( 7 ) information given by the counsel as required under Rule-10A of Order-XXII of the Civil Procedure Code, there was no justification to attribute knowledge about death of the defendant No. 11 to the petitioner. The petitioner is a person from rural area. The Apex Court in “Ram Sumiran and others v. D.D.C. and others” (AIR 1985 S.C. 606) held that in such a case, the ends of justice require that the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party should have been granted. Considering the legal position enumerated hereinabove and having regard to the reasons ascribed by the learned Civil Judge, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is unsustainable for want of consideration of the amended legal position under Rule-10A. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The applications shall be treated as granted and the trial Court is directed to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 11 as prayed for. The trial Court shall ( 8 ) expedite the final hearing after the substitution. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp4290-05