1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1683 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4813 OF 1998 Maroti s/o Baliram Kokate ... APPLICANT VERSUS Madanlal s/o Jagannath Bangad and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Advocate holding for Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for R.No.1. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 4 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER DAVARE, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. Shri S.S. Bora, learned counsel, who was appearing for respondent No.1, submits that, he has withdrawn his appearance for respondent No.1 and praecipe has been filed to that effect on 3.11.2004. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.1 have no objection for the same. In view of the said position, the name of Shri S.S. Bora, learned counsel stands discharged. Office to show name of Advocate Shri S.V. Gangapurwala for L.Rs. of respondent No.1. 2. The applicant/ original petitioner has preferred the present application for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 Madanlal s/o Jagannath Bangad, condoning the delay caused therein. 3. The applicant submits that, he has filed the writ petition in this Court, challenging the judgment and order rendered by Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 23.6.1997 in Appeal No.1996/Inam/Appeal-2 and the judgment and order passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Osmanabad on 29.12.1995. 4. The applicant further submits that the respondent No.1 expired on 2.9.2000, leaving behind the heirs and Legal representatives as stated in paragraph No.2 of the application 3 and applicant further states that, there are no other heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 except as stated in paragraph No.2 of the present application. 5. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and it is devoid of any merits and, therefore, prayed that same be rejected. However, learned counsel for respondent No.1 confirmed the position that respondent No.1 Madanlal expired on 2.9.2000. 6. In the circumstances, since the right to sue survives and continues against the heirs and legal representatives of respondent No.1, they are required to be brought on record. Hence, present application is required to be allowed in the interest of justice, condoning the delay caused therein. 7. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and applicant (original petitioner) is permitted to bring the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record as stated in paragraph No. 2 of the present application, within a period of two weeks. Delay condoned. Shri Pardeshi, learned counsel waives service for heirs and legal representatives of respondent No.1, but the 4 learned counsel for applicant/ petitioner to serve the copy of the amended petition upon the learned counsel for heirs and legal heirs of respondent No.1. Rule made absolute in above terms. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/ca1683.02