1 9559.10-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 9559 OF 2010 Gulshan Mehboob Bagwan and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. Shamsuddin Kasambhai Bagwan and others. ... Respondents. Balasaheb R. Deshmukh for the petitioners. Avinash B. Avhad for respondent Nos.3 to 5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 17th August 2011. P.C. : Heard. 2. Rule. 3. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 4. This petition, filed by the original plaintiff, raises exception to the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daund below Exh.24 in R.C.S.No.140/2008. The petitioners/ original plaintiffs presented the suit claiming partition and separate possession of the property belonging to the family. During the pendency of the suit, 2 9559.10-wp counsel appearing for the defendants filed purshis informing the death of defendant No.2 on 5th October 2009. The plaintiff, petitioner herein, presented an application on 15th December 2009 requesting the Court to permit the plaintiff to bring on record the legal heirs of the concerned defendant. The said application was opposed by the respondent contending that there was no separate application tendered by the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay and that the application was barred by two days. 5. The learned trial Judge on considering the contentions of the parties, proceeded to reject the application. Hence this petition. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel of the parties and perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 7. It can be gathered on perusal of the proceeding that there is a delay of two days in preferring the application. The respondents are also justified in contending that there was no separate application presented seeking condonation of delay. On perusal of contents of the memo of writ petition, it seems that a request is made for condonation of delay and the petitioner/ original plaintiff has also given reasons for presenting the application delayed by two days. Considering the submissions made before me, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed material irregularity in rejecting the application. Ends of justice would be met if the application is allowed and the delay occurred in presenting the application is condoned. 3 9559.10-wp 8. Hence, for the reasons recorded, writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daund dated 15th December, 2009 below Exh.24 in R.C.S.No.140/2008 stands quashed and set aside. The application tendered by the plaintiff at Exh.24 before the trial Court shall be deemed to have been allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out within six weeks from today. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE, J.)