1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.12531 of 2009 In W.P.No.360/1993 with C.A.No.2870 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. These are application for condonations of delay and setting aside abatement caused as well to substitute the legal representatives of deceased Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. There can not be any two opinion about the proposition that delay can not be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. The Respondent No.2 died on 22.11.1999, whereas the Respondent No.3 died on 16.3.1996 and there is good deal of delay in filing of the applications to set aside the abatement. According to the applicant, he had no knowledge about the death of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. He submits that he is employed at Ahmednagar and his father was the original petitioner. It appears that the applicant was substituted as per this Court's order dated 17.6.2005. It appears that deaths of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were much prior to substitution of the applicant in place of the deceased petitioner. There appears grain of truth in his contention that his father was looking after the litigation during his life time till about 2005. It is pointed out by Mr.Deshmukh, that cause title of the petition shows that the applicant is inhabitant of the same village. He would submit that the small population of the village would ordinarily give information about deaths to all the inhabitants and, therefore, knowledge can be attributed to the applicant. I find it difficult to countenance the argument. For, statement of the applicant on affidavit that he is employed at Ahmednagar would show that he may not be in day to-day contact with the village affairs. It is probable that his father was looking after the litigation till 2005 and thereafter he came to be substituted. The Respondents did not inform about deaths of the deceased Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as required U/o 10-A of Order XXII of the C.P.C. Considering these aspects and the practical experience that many times there is lack of communication between the advocate and the client after filing of the Writ Petition, until some event requires the contact to be reestablished, I am of the opinion that the delay deserves to be condoned. Consequently, the delay is condoned. The abatement is set aside. The applications are allowed with directions to substitute the L.Rs. of deceased Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their place, subject to depositing of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad within a period of two (2) weeks. After the amendment of the cause title, if amount is deposited within two (2) weeks, the petition be enlisted for final hearing on 18.3.2010. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.23.02.2010. asp/office/Ca12531.09