ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2182 OF 1994 PETITION NO. 2182 OF 1994 PETITION NO. 2182 OF 1994 Shri Dadu Ganu Patil Occu. Nil, Mental Retard, through his next friend wife Sou. Chingabai Dadu Patil Age 53 yrs.,Occu. Labour & Household, R/o.Tanang, Tq.Miraj, Dist. Sangli. ...Petitioner Vs. Shri Vishnu Maruti Jadhav, since deceased by heirs & L.Rs. 1. Shankar Vishnu Jadhav, Age 42 yrs., Occu. Service, 2. Shailendra Vishnu Jadhav, (Dismissed as per A.R’s order dated 15/06/1995). 3. Balasaheb Vishnu Jadhav, (Dismissed as per A.R’s order dated 15/06/1995). 4. Sanjay Vishnu Jadhav, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Service. 5. Smt.Parvati Vishnu Jadhav, (Deceased) (dismissed for default on 10/01/2003). Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 R/o. Tanang, Tq. Miraj, Dist. Sangli 6. Sau.Shabai Vilas Salunkhe, household, R/o. Bhikawadi, Tq.Tasgaon, Dist.Sangli. 7. Sau. Nikabai Bhagwan Ghatage (Dismissed as per A.R’s order dated 15/06/1995). ...Respondents. Mr.N.J.Patil for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ( 2 ) CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 10th November, 2008. : 10th November, 2008. : 10th November, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- . The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/09/1993, whereby, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj rejected the Petitioner’s- Original Plaintiff’s application/ request to carry out the amendment as it was not carried out since 14/12/1992. 2. This Court has admitted the Petition and on 19/07/1994 granted prayer clause (c). The Petition is pending since then. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 are served. The case is dismissed against Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. Respondent No.6 is not residing in the given address as per office remarks. 3. Taking all this into account, I am of the view that there is no point in keeping this Petition against the inter-locutory order even otherwise, the trial Court ought to have granted permission to carry out the amendment. To avoid such delay, since it is pending since 1991, Petition is allowed. The Petitioner to carry out the amendment on or before 24/11/2008 from the receipt of the copy of this order. ( 3 ) 4. Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). However, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue till 22/12/2008. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply for further continuation of order, if any. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)