dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2293 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2293 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2293 OF 2008 WITH C.A.W. NO.2295 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.A.S.Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mr.Mandar Limaye for the respondents 3(A) and 3(B). CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd October, 2008. : 3rd October, 2008. : 3rd October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. By the impugned order, the plaintiff’s application to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.3 on record was rejected. The basic reason for filing such application was that during cross-examination defendant no.3-B disclosed the names and addresses of married daughters of deceased no.3 i.e. on 5.1.2008 and, therefore, an application is made on 22.1.2008. Admittedly, earlier the legal heirs of deceased no.3 i.e. wife and son are already brought on record pursuant to ( 2 ) the order passed by this court. Therefore, they are contesting the same in the absence of these two sisters. The present application is therefore practically after more than 13 years. Though there was no objection raised at any point of time at the relevant time, still the fact remains that these two sisters were not brought on record along with other heirs. It is also recorded in the order that defendant no.3-B in his defence contended that rest of the legal heirs and rest of the defendants have relinquished their right, title and interest in his favour. Therefore, defendant no.3-B is the only person who has right, title and interest in the suit property. In this view of the matter and as the heirs of defendants have relinquished their right, the mother and son are representing the title and ( 3 ) interest of the deceased in question. In view of this, there is no case made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed. Since the sole petitioner is aged about 71 years old, the hearing of the Suit is expedited. In view of dismissal of the petition, C.A. No.2295/08 does not survive and the same is also disposed of with liberty. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]