1 IN THE HIGH COUJRT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1619 OF 2005 Suresh Dattatraya Pail, since deceased, by his heirs and legal respresentative : Smt.Sunita Suresh Patil and Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Madhavlal Dashrathlal Agarwal ... Respondent ..... Mr. S.K.Hushing, Advocate, for the appellants. Smt.Lalita Panchakshari, Advocate, for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. ..... CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 13th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed Regular Suit No. 175 of 1993 for permanent injunction and declaration as well as partition and separate possession of certain suit property. Defendant no.5 Vasant and defendant no.6 Suresh, sons of Dattatraya Patil claim to have purchased some of the property from defendant no.1. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Against that the original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1999. That appeal was allowed and the decree for partition and separate possession was passed by the judgment and order dated 9th August 2005. 3. The present Second Appeal is filed by the L.Rs. of the original respondent-defendant no.6-Suresh Dattatraya Patil. According to them 2 Suresh Patil had died on 23rd March 2004 during pendency of First Appeal. However, the L.Rs. of said respondent-defendant no.6 Suresh Patil were not brought on record and appeal came to be allowed against respondent- defendant no.6 Suresh Patil, who had already died. The Death Certificate is produced to show that Suresh Patil had died on 23rd March 2004. Record clearly reveals that his L.Rs. were not brought on record and therefore, it appears that L.Rs. of respondent-defendant no.6-Suresh Patil did not get opportunity to contest the appeal and the appeal was allowed without hearing them. 4. These facts are not disputed even by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. In my considered opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice : This Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1999 is set aside. The Appeal is remanded back to the file of the District Judge, Baramati, District Pune for hearing the appeal afresh after the present appellants are brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased respondent no.6-Suresh Patil. The parties shall appear before the District Court on 14th September 2009. 5. The parties shall act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)