1 17.cas562.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 562 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2007 Arvind Pandurang More. ....Applicant. Vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Corp., Kolhapur, Kolhapur & ors. ....Respondents Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh h/f. Mr. V.B. Naik, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.S.Patwardhan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 P.C. 1. By this Civil Application, following substantive reliefs are sought : “(b) Order dated 29th November, 2010 may kindly be recalled and matter may kindly be restored qua Respondent No. 8; (c) Abatement of the appeal, if any, against the Respondent No. 8 may kindly be set aside; (d) The delay of 14 years and 2 months caused in filing this instant application be kindly be condoned; (e) Appellant and Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 may kindly be treated as legal heirs of deceased Respondent No. 8; and” 2 17.cas562.11 2. Perusal of the Application shows that the Suit was decided on 20/1/1994. The Respondent No. 8 died on 30/9/1996 during the pendency of the Appeal in the District Court. Since all his heirs are already stated to be on record, there will be prima facie no abatement of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 372 of 1994 which has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in District Court at Kolhapur. In view of this, a case for recalling the order dated 29/11/2010 is made out. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (e). For the reasons indicated above, since there was no delay nor any abatement, prayer clause (c) and (d) are redundant. 3. It would be open to any of the parties to point out that, apart from the parties who are already on record, there are other heirs of the Respondent No. 8 and if such an Application is filed, legal effect of such situation would be considered on its own merits at the time of admission of the Second Appeal. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)