1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. LPA 59/2008 in Writ Petition No.4999/2007 ( Smt. Latabai wd/o Krishnakumar Gedam .vs. Smt. Jijabai wd/o Gariba Gedam and another) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE, & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ DATED : MARCH 3, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Gariba Gedam and Dayaram Gedam were real brothers. Jijabai is the widow of Gariba and Suresh is the son of Jijabai whereas Radhabai is the widow of Dayaram and Krushnakumar is the son of Radhabai. Jijabai and Suersh instituted a suit for ejectment, possession and damages against Krushnakumr and Radhabai. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Thereafter Radhabai and Krushnakumar preferred an appeal against 2 the said judgment and decree. During the pendency of the first appeal, Krushnakumar died on 26.11.1998. The first appeal was dismissed. Thereafter second appeal was preferred without informing about the death of Krushnakumar. Subsequently on the application of Radhabai {the appellant} the name of Krushnakumar was deleted and the appeal of Krushnakumar abated. Subsequently the second appeal was also dismissed. 3. The original plaintiffs/decree holders filed execution proceedings in which they applied for bringing the L.Rs. of deceased Krushnakumar- (judgment-debtor) on record. The said application was strongly opposed by the children of deceased Krushnakumar. However, the said application was allowed. The said order was challenged not by the children of deceased Krushnakumar but by Latabai (the widow of deceased Krushnakumar) by filing writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it has not been shown that the decree is not executable against the original judgment-debtor on account of abatement or otherwise. The said order of the learned Single Judge is now challenged by Latabai (the widow of deceased Krushnakumar). 4. It may be noted that the judgment and decree was challenged by Radhabai and 3 Krushnakumar . It was for Radhabai to bring the names of the L.Rs. of deceased Krushnakumar on record, but that was not done. On the contrary Radhabai moved an application for deleting the name of deceased Krushnakumar. It may be noted that the widow and children of deceased Krushnakumar also did not move an application for bringing their names on record as the L.Rs. of deceased Krushnakumar. It is thus apparent that Latabai (widow of deceased Krushnakumar) wants to take advantage of the wrong committed by Radhabai (the mother of deceased Krushnakumar) which cannot be permitted. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on S.S. Shrivastava .vs. Dwarka Prasad Mathur- AIR 1996 SC 3505. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We find no substance in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai