1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1992 OF 2010 Shyamrao S. Chaudhary -: VERSUS :- Janardhan G. Hate and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri P.D. Meghe, learned Counsel for petitioner/defendant and Shri S.C. Bhalerao, learned Counsel for respondents. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. It is apparent that the suit for permanent injunction was to protect possession and because of the impugned order that suit has been restored by permitting legal heirs to be brought on record. Contention of Shri Mehge, learned Counsel for petitioner is, in the process delay of 4 years and 9 months has been condoned just for asking. Shri Bhalerao, learned Counsel for respondents 2 contends that there are just and sufficient grounds. He has narrated before the Court the previous history in which the deceased Madhukar obtained decree for specific performance in 1973 and then sale deed from Court in 1977 and thereafter possession of the suit property. During hearing, it has come on record that the respondents did not lead any evidence to bring ignorance on record. Similarly, the petitioner has also not led any evidence and parties did not get any opportunity to cross examine. In this situation, I feel that interest of justice can be satisfied by permitting the petitioner an opportunity to cross examine the respondents who have applied to the trial Court for setting aside the abatement and for substitution. For said purpose, the impugned order passed below Exhs. 126, 127, 128 on 11.02.2010 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 91/1980 are restored back only to enable the respondents to file appropriate additional application or additional affidavit and then to enter witness box to give petitioner an opportunity to cross examine them. Petitioner is also given liberty to file his say and to enter witness box, if he is so advised. As the matter is old, the trial Court to attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2011. Parties to appear 3 before the trial Court on 15.12.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.