1 CRA No.133/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 of 2010 Rajesh Rao ... Applicant versus K.P. Ravi and others ... Respondents ... Mr.V.H.Vora for the applicant. Mr.Uday Bobade i/b Jeetendra Ramugade for respondent no.1. Mr.Mohan Tekawade with Ms.Swati Tekawade for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 1st August 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of original respondent no.5 raised a preliminary objection for the maintainability of the revision application. He submits that after the death of respondent no.5, his heirs have been brought on record in the trial court. They h ave not been joined as parties to the revision application and therefore, revision application is not maintainable. Revision Application is against the order passed by the trial court which inter alia holds that suit is not barred under section 50 of the 2 CRA No.133/10 Bombay Public Trust Act and also holds that the trial court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Any modification in this would affect the rights of the legal representatives of the respondent no.5 (original defendant no.5) inasmuch as whatever decision that this court renders would be binding on him. As such, in my view, the legal representatives of respondent no.5 (original defendant no.5) are necessary parties to the revision application. Since the applicant has chosen not to join the legal representatives of original deceased respondent no.5 as parties to the revision application, revision application is dismissed. (D.G.KARNIK, J)