1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4670 of 2011 Sunanda Raju Dhekle through L.Rs. Jivak Raju Dhekle and others. Vs. Smt. Vimaltai Babaraoji Raut and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. J.R. Kidilay, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 22 nd September, 2011. Heard Shri Kidilay, the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 14.7.2011 allowing the applications filed by the respondent no.1 for substituting her name in place of deceased plaintiff, for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution and for setting aside the abatement, if any. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit filed by the original plaintiff Sarjerao, the plaintiff expired on 13.3.2010. The respondent no. 1 who claims to be the daughter-in-law of original plaintiff, filed three applications - for substitution, for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement. The petitioner resisted the applications filed by the respondent no. 1 and stated that it appeared that the respondent no.1 was merely feeling and treating that she was the daughter-in-law of the deceased plaintiff as the surname of the plaintiff and the respondent no. 1 was the same. It was stated in the 2 say of the petitioner that a daughter-in-law cannot be a legal heir of the father-in-law as she is not mentioned in any class and category of Hindu Law. It was the case of the petitioner that the deceased plaintiff had no issue. The trial court, however, on appreciation of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, allowed the applications by the impugned order dated 14.7.2011. The trial court rightly held that it was not necessary at that stage to believe the assertion of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 was not the daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff. The trial court further observed that the term “legal heirs” was very wide and includes the person who represents the estate of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since there was no dispute or controversy between the two sets of persons, claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 was disputing that the respondent no.1 was the daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff, the trial court did not commit any error in not deciding the issue as regards the legal heirs of original plaintiff at that stage of the proceedings. Hence, in the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The issue as to whether the respondent no. 1 is or is not the daughter-in-law of deceased plaintiff is, however, kept open. JUDGE Hirekhan