IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (o) NO.898 ; 899 & 900 ALL OF 2010 & M.C.A. (st) no.11041 / 2010 & C.A. NO. 551/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2551 /2002 (Legal heirs of Late Yeshwant Shiraskar and others vs. Prakash Dhadiwal and others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr S P Bhandarkar, Adv.for petitioners Mr Agrawal, Adv.h/for Mr Bhangde,Adv.for Res.1 and 2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATED : 26 th September, 2011. Heard. Mr Agrawal, the learned counsel for legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 strongly opposes the prayer made in the Civil Applications and states that though the applicants have stated that they were not aware of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 2551/2002 since this was the third round of litigation and since they have not stated that they also did not know that two previous writ petitions were filed, it would not be just and proper to condone the delay. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 that the applicants have filed a false affidavit dated 14.9.2010 and stated therein that they were using the suit shop as stationery shop. Since the electric supply was disconnected in 2008, the applicants could not have used it as a stationery shop and when this fact was brought to the notice of the applicants they have filed a fresh affidavit stating that they are using the suit shop as a godown. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, this Court may not condone the delay, considering the conduct of the applicants. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits filed on record, it appears that the applicants have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the application for restoration. It is necessary to note that it is categorically stated by the applicants in the Civil Application that they became aware of the dismissal of the Writ Petition for want of prosecution when they received the notice in the execution proceedings in or about 25th June, 2010 and immediately took steps to obtain necessary case papers and filed the applications. It is the case of the applicants that they were not aware of the pendency of Writ Petition No.2551/2002. In such circumstances, they could not have filed an application for bringing their names on record in place of deceased petitioners. Both the objections raised on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 are without any substance and are liable to be rejected. This Court does not find that the applicants have stated any falsehood in the affidavit. The judgment reported in 2010 6 Scale 749 in the matter of Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh and others, and relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, all the three Civil Applications are allowed and disposed of. M.C.A. (ST) NO. 11041/2010: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the contents of the Misc. Civil Application. For the reasons stated therein, it would be necessary to set aside the order dated 7.1.2008 and permit the applicants to prosecute the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is restored to file. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. C.A.NO. 551/2011: Heard. Since all the respondents are served, the Civil Application is not pressed. The same is disposed of as such. JUDGE sahare