ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30094 OF 2006 APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30094 OF 2006 APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30094 OF 2006 ( # ) Nivrutti Bhausaheb Jamdar & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Kailas Baban Jadhav & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Applicants. Ms.Bhakti Barve i/by Ms. Arati Barve for Respondent No.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 13th June, 2008 : 13th June, 2008 : 13th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Civil Application filed by the Legal heirs of the Appellants after the closing of arguments of the matter before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune but before the pronouncing of the judgment. 2. Order 22 Rule 6 provides the procedure in such circumstances, which is reproduced as under:- "6. No No No abatement by reason of death after abatement by reason of death after abatement by reason of death after hearing:- hearing:- hearing:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place." 3. In the present case, there is no opposition from Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 fairly states that the delay may be condoned in the circumstances but subject to costs. 4. In the present case, as per the office report, there is a delay of about one year and 14 days. The Original Appellant-Claimant Nivrutti Bhausaheb Jamdar died on 07/08/2005 and the date of Judgment is 28/02/2006. The Applicants are the only Legal heirs of the deceased Nivrutti Bhausaheb Jamdar after the death of original Appellant. No steps could be taken by the Applicants for want of knowledge of this technical aspects. Applicant No.1 was also unwell. Applicant No.2 is physically handicapped son who is affected by polio and Applicant No.3 is mentally retarded daughter of deceased Nivrutti. The mental condition of the mother- Applicant No.1 in this background just cannot be overlooked apart from the fact that they are poor and have no sufficient income, they are unable to collect the necessary expenses to take steps as required. 5. Taking all this into consideration, and in view of the averments made in the Civil Application and as sufficient case is made out, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 6. The appeal be listed for admission after due registration. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]