1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4237 OF 2005 Bhausaheb S/o Jagannath Shirsath } Age : 65 Years, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Village Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through the Collector, } Ahmednagar. } 2. The Tahsildar } Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. Keshav S/o Vitthal Shirsath } Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 4. Nivrutti Gangaram Shirsath } Deceased through L.Rs. : } 4-A. Ramesh S/o Nivrutti Shirsath } Age : 27 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 4-B. Mohan S/o Nivrutti Shirsath } Age : 25 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } 2 R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 4-C. Solochana W/o Gopichand Gaikwad } Age : 31 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 4-D. Chandrakala Dattatraya Lambe } Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 4-E. Vimal Laxman Kalhapure } Age : 36 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 4-F. Mangal Madhukar Pawar } Age : 23 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 4-G. Meena Balasaheb Karpe } Age : 39 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 5. Pradeep Shridhar Shirsath } Age : 31 Yrs.,Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 6. Popat Balaji Shirsath } Deceased through L.Rs. : } 6-A. Bapu Popat Shirsath } Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } 3 Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-B. Rambhau Popat Shirsath } Age : 46 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-C. Laxman Popat Shirsath } Age : 43 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-D. Vitthal Popat Shirsath } Age : 42 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-E. Bhimabai Shantaram Gade } Age : 40 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-F. Asha Laxman Dhakane } Age : 38 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-G. Chhaya Bhimashankar Adhav } Age : 36 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 6-H. Shewantabai Popat Shirsath } Age : 34 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 7. Laxman Vishwanath Kokate } Deceased through L.Rs. : } 4 7-A. Smt. Chandrdakala Laxman Kokate } Age : 58 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 7-B. Appasaheb Laxman Kokate } Age : 33 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 7-C. Mahinddra Laxman Kokate } Minor through guardian 7 - A } mother, R/o : Deshwandi, } Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. } 7-D. Bhagirathibai Vishwanath Kokate } Age : 75 Years, Occ. Nil, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 7-E. Sou. Suman vishvanath Kokate } Age : Major, Occ. Household, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 7-Ee. Sou. Kadubai Murlidhar Zuge } Age : Major, Occ. Household, } R/o : Aradgaon, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 8. Eknath S/o Kisan Kokate } Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 9. Gopinath S/o Tatyaba Pawar } Deceased through L.Rs. : } 9-A. Housabai W/o Gopinath Pawar } 5 Age : 75 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 9-B. Kachru S/o Gopinath Pawar } Age : 35 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 9-C. Chandrakalabai D/o Gopinath Pawar } Age : 40 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 9-D. Harnabai W/o Gorakh Ghadge } Age : 50 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Malharwadi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 9-E. Saraswati W/o Balasaheb Ghadge } Age : 45 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Malharwadi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 9-F. Sulochana W/o Dilip Sapre } Age : 38 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Waghacha Akhada, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 10. Subhash Dhondiram Pawar } Age : 41 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 11. Murlidhar Khandu Pawar (Deceased)} 12. Ambadas Kashinath Kalhapure } Age : 44 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } 6 Dist. Ahmednagar. } 13. Ramdas Ambadas Kalhapure } Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 14. Laxman Ambadas Kalhapure } Age : 38 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 15. Bhanudas Ambadas Kalhapure } Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 16. Appasaheb Ambadas Kalhapure } Age : 31 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 17. Uttam Gopinath Kalhapure } Age : 32 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Deshwandi, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. B.S.Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P.Latange, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.H.Borade, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2 – State. Mr. M.G.Kolshe Patil,Advocate for respondent Nos. 3, 4-A, 4-B, 5, 6-D, 7-B, 7-C, 8 to 10, 13 to 16. 7 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17/02/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges common order dated 8/9/2000 rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ahmednagar on his applications (Exhs. 110, 112 and 123) filed in Suit (R.C.S. No. 981 of 1988). 2. The petitioner is original plaintiff, who filed suit against several defendants including deceased defendant no. 7 by name Laxman Vishwanath Kokate. Said Laxman (defendant no. 7) died on 7/11/1995. The suit was held as abated. The trial Court passed order of abatement due to non substitution of his legal representatives. The petitioner filed applications for condonation of delay caused in filing of application for substitution of the legal representatives, setting aside of the abatement order and leave to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 7. The petitioner alleged that due to over sight, the application for substitution of the legal representatives was not filed by him. He, therefore, sought leave to substitute the legal representatives by setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay. The learned Civil Judge considered the applications together. The counsel for the parties were heard. The learned Civil Judge rejected all the three (3) applications by the common order which is 8 impugned in this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in considering the request for substitution of the legal representatives by setting aside the order of abatement if some sufficient cause is shown regarding the delay. In the present case, nowhere the petitioner alleged that he had no knowledge about death of the defendant no. 7. He gave vague and single reason for the delay, to wit : “ due to over sight ” the application could not be filed. The petitioner and deceased defendant no. 7 belong to same locality of village Deshwandi. Counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4-A, 4-B, 5, 6-D, 7-B, 7-C, 8 to 10 and 13 to 16 makes a statement that agricultural lands of the petitioner and the deceased defendant no. 7 are adjoining to each other. Obviously, the petitioner had knowledge about death of the deceased defendant no. 7. The applications were filed approximately after one and half ( 1 ½ ) year of the death of deceased defendant no. 7. I have perused copy of the delay condonation application which is placed on record. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about legal provision to substitute legal representatives of the deceased defendant. 5. By applying any yard-stick, the delay condonation application does not come within the ambit of Section 5 of the 9 Limitaion Act. For, there is total absence of “ sufficient cause ” for the purpose of condonation of the delay. The delay condonation is not a statutory right available to any party. Without proper explanation about delay, such application can not be granted. It need to be reiterated that except vague and fake reason of the omission due to over sight, no other reason is stated in the application. Obviously, the learned Civil Judge is right in rejecting the applications. The learned Civil Judge referred to “ Union of India V/s Ram Charan through his legal representatives ” ( AIR 1964 - Supreme Court - 215 ) , wherein it is held that the Court has no inherent power to add legal representatives under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Considering the legal position and the fact situation of the present case, there is no substance in the petition. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/WP 4237.05