1cra-81-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.81/2008 Mr Sudhakar Kashinath Joshi. .. Applicants. Through his Heirs and Legal Representatives. Rajni Sudhakar Joshi and ors. vs. M/s Winson Ciramics and Others ..Respondents. Shishailaja Deshmukh for the Applicants. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J DATED: 12th MARCH,2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants who are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. Though respondent Nos. 1 to 7  original defendants were served, none for them. 2. Perused the contents of the Revision Application. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants. 4. Special Civil Suit No. 297/1989 was filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Thane by one Sudhakar Kashinath Joshi, husband of present applicant No.1 and father 2cra-81-08 of applicant Nos. 2 to 5. The said suit was filed for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,26,795/- against the respondents. In December, 1998 suit was decreed ex-parte. Special Darkhast proceedings were taken out in the year 2001. Subsequently,present respondents defendants filed application No.261/2001 for setting aside ex parte decree but belatedly by 900 days. It was allowed by the Trial Court and ex parte decree was set aside and suit was restored to the file. Subsequently, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Court at Palghar was established. The present suit was transferred from Thane to Palghar and was renumbered as Special Civil Suit No.85/05. 5. During the pendency of such Special Civil Suit No. 85/05 on 28.2.2006 original plaintiff Sudhakar Joshi died leaving behind the applicants as his legal heirs and representatives. They preferred an application on 9.2.2009 much beyond the period of limitation for bringing the legal heirs on record for their impleadment in place of the original deceased plaintiff. Said application was strongly opposed by the respondents-defendants. The impugned order came to be passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar on 2.8.2007. The said application for impleadment as plaintiffs was rejected on main ground as no sufficient cause for filing the application in time. This is 3cra-81-08 the order challenged in the present C.R.A., by the legal heirs and representatives of the original deceased plaintiff. 6. According to the applicants, they were not aware of the proceedings initiated by the orignal plaintiff for recovery of dues and knew only when Advocate apprised them. However, this fact is not pleaded in the application made before the Trial Court. Reliance is placed on the following authority:- K.Rudrappa v. Shivappa 2004 AIR SCW 5106 7. Wherein, it has been observed by the Apex Court that technical objections should not come in the way of doing justice. In that matter at hand before the Apex Court there was no delay condonation application as is the case in the present matter. 8. Considering that the earlier exparte decree was set aside by the Court condoning delay of more than 900 days, it would be in the fitness of the situation to allow the present applicants to represent their deceased father and deceased husband of applicant No.1 in the suit which is for the recovery of the amount more than Rs.3 lacs. As reiterated by the Apex Court in the above referred citation, it is necessary to have disposal of the matter on merits and after giving opportunity to the present applicants to putforth 4cra-81-08 their claim, though there was no separate delay condonation application preferred before the Trial Court. However, there was a specific averment in the application preferred before the Trial Court,in paragraph No.4 page 20 as to condonation of delay of 160 days caused in preferring the application for bringing legal heirs on record in place of the deceased plaintiff. 9. In totality of the situation, present C.R.A., is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.8.2007 passed by the Incharge Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar is set aside. Special Civil Suit No.85/2005 shall be allowed to be represented by the present applicants as plaintiffs in place of the deceased plaintiff. The Trial Court shall dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible according to law. No order as to costs. (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI)