-:1:- 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 CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1387 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1387 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1387 OF 2008 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2007 Keda Bala Chavan & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. Mahadu Giri Borse (deceased) 1A. Deoram Mahadu Borse & Ors. ... Respondents. ..... Mr. Y. Sakhare i/b. M/s. Y.K.S. Legal for the Applicants. Mr. Balkrishna Hardas i/b. P.J. Joshi for Respondents 1a to 1b. Mr. Jitendra Pathare for Appellant No.1. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. : R.M. SAVANT, J. : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE DATE DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2008. : 27TH AUGUST, 2008. : 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . By the above Civil Application the Applicant seeks transposition of the Appellant No.1 as Respondent No.5 in view of the fact that it is the case of the Appellant No.1 that he has not signed the Vakalatnama which has been issued in favour of the learned Advocates for the Appellant. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant No.1 states that he did not desire to be one of the Appellants in the above Appeal but his signature on the Vakalatnama issued to the learned Counsel for the Appellants is forged as he is an illiterate person and uses his thumb impression. The -:2:- learned Counsel for the Applicant Shri Y. Sakhare states that unknowingly the Vakalatnama was filed which bears the signature of Appellant No.1 on it. According to him, the Advocates for the Appellants, were not personally aware of the said fact and became aware only when the Appellant No.1 appears in the above matter through another Advocate and took exception to he being arrayed as a Appellant. Immediately, after knowing the objection of Appellant No.1, the instant Civil Application has been filed. 3. Considering the fact that the Appeal has been filed on behalf of a group of 15 villagers, all of whom have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions on one Vakalatnama in favour of the Advocates for the Appellants. The explanation of the learned Counsel for the Applicant Shri Y. Sakhare appears to be plausible. The main lis is between the Appellant and the Respondent Nos.1a and 1b who are represented by Shri P.N. Joshi. The dispute is in respect of a road which is being used by the villagers and which according to the Respondent Nos.1a and 1b passes through their property and belongs to them. Therefore, even if it is assumed that without the knowledge of the Appellant No.1 his signature was appearing on the Vakalatnama, obviously, no benefit could have been derived by the other Appellants except having his company as a co-Appellant. -:3:- 4. In that view of the matter, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 6. List the above Second appeal for admission on 10th September 2008. 7. The learned Counsel Mr. Jitendra Pathare states that he will appear for Respondent No.5 who is transposed as such and waives notice on behalf of the said Respondent. (R.M. (R.M. (R.M. SAVANT,J.) SAVANT,J.) SAVANT,J.)