1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICTION NO.520 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.481 OF 1989 Radhakrishna Ramchandra Joshi & Anr. .. Appellants V/s Hari Ramchandra Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Chaitali Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms.A.R.S.Baxi, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 24th February, 2011. P.C.: 1. This is an application for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the Applicant No.15-Pandurang Shripad Joshi on record, who expired on 9.1.2006. The application is filed on 11.4.2010. There is delay of 4 years and 4 days in filing the application. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.1-Hari Ramchandra Joshi instituted suit inter-alia contending that he alone has right to perform worship of Lord Ganapati of Shree Siddhivinayak Ganapati Temple of Solapur and that he is exclusively entitled to the offerings made to the deity. He further contended that the Defendants in the suit i.e.the remaining members of all Joshi families, Solapur (Samasta Gram Joshi) have no right either to perform pooja or receive the offerings made to the deity and for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the performance of pooja and receiving the offerings to the deity by the plaintiffs. 3. By the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1982, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this decision, the Respondent No.1 preferred the civil Appeal No.307 of 1982 before the District Court. By the impugned judgment 2 and decree dated 12.5.1989, the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the decree passed by the learned trial Judge was set aside. It was declared that the Respondent No.1-original plaintiff is exclusive owner and is in possession of Shree Siddhivinayak Ganapati Temple and he alone has right to perform the worship of Lord Ganapati in that temple and to receive the offerings made to the deity. The Defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the right of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. 4. Aggrieved by this decision, the Defendants preferred the above second appeal, and after hearing both sides, the second appeal was admitted on 7.9.1989, as it raises substantial question of law as to whether the suit temple was rightly held to be the private property of Respondent No.1-original plaintiff. Thus it would be evident that the Respondent No.1 is claiming right to perform worship and to receive the offerings to the exclusion of all the Defendants i.e.the remaining members of all Joshi families, Solapur (Samasta Gram Joshi). 5. For the reasons set out in the civil application as also having due regard to the controversy raised in the second appeal, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d), with no order as to costs. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks from today. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)