1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.6654/09 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.5/1993. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Prasanna N.Kutti, Adv. for applicants; Mr.AN Nagargoje, Adv. for Respondent. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 2nd September,2009. 1. Heard Mr.Kutti for the original legal representatives of sole respondent and Mr.Nagargoje for the appellant. 2. After extensively hearing Mr.Nagargoje and having given several opportunities to the counsel on record, representing the original respondents, this Court on 27.2.2009 allowed the Second Appeal filed by the appellant and directed original plaintiff to deliver possession of suit property within three months. The legal representatives of the respondent – Vasudeo Hiraman Patil, have stated on oath, they were not aware about the pending litigation of Second Appeal. They learnt of the same when their possession was sought to be disturbed b the appellant on 23rd June, 2 2009. The appellant is alleged to be influential person in the locality. Consequent upon such position, the legal representatives rushed to Aurangabad on 25th June, 2009 and were disturbed to learn from their earlier advocate, who was engaged by their father, that the matter is decided against them. The legal representatives have stated the earlier advocate has not given satisfactory information to their queries. 3. Vasudeo, the sole respondent, in fact, expired on 16.11.1993. It was incumbent upon the Counsel representing the respondent to have communicated the same. However, for 15-16 years, there is no communication to this effect. The appellant stays 2 kms. away from the house of deceased Vasudeo. The appellant also did not bother to bring correct facts on record. 4. The fact remains that the order dated 27.2.2009 was recorded against the respondent when he was already dead in the year 1993. Consequently, the order could not be executed and it was not executable against a dead person. The order needs to be recalled. It is accordingly re-called. 5. As the legal representatives are already brought on record by earlier directions, 3 the appeal be placed for final hearing. 6. Civil Application No.6654/2009 is allowed as above. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/ca6654.09