ca940/06 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.940/2006 IN SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.4077/2006 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.B.Shah for Applicant Mr.V.S.Talkute for Res.1-A CORAM- G.S.Godbole,J. DATE- 28th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. . By this Civil Application following substantive prayers have been made. (a) The Applicant be permitted to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent no.6. (b) Abatement as against deceased Respondent no.6 be set aside. (c) Delay of about 11 years may be condoned. (d) Applicant be permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in the aforesaid Second Appeal St.4077/2006. Respondent nos.1-A to 1-G and 2-A to 2-F are duly served. Respondent no.1 and 2 were the original Plaintiffs ca940/06 2 in R.C.S.166/1986 and the judgment clearly indicates that Defendant nos.2 to 5 therein had been impleaded only account of the fact that they were the members of other family having shares in some of the suit lands, but they are not from the joint family of the Plaintiff and Defendant no.1. The suit proceeded exparte against Defendant no.2 and 4(1) and (5). Even before me, the learned counsel agreed that defendant nos.2 to 5 were not the necessary parties and were joined as formal parties. This appears to be correct position and the submission of the learned counsel in that regard is well founded. Respondent no.6, Sonba Shivram Sonawane, being Defendant no.3 in the Trial Court and as stated above he was joined as a formal party, he had never contested the suit. In view of this, this would be a fit case to exercise power under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Apart from that the Respondents 3 to 8 not being a necessary party, they need not be retained as a parties in the Second Appeal. The Appellant is,therefore, permitted to delete Respondent nos.3 to 8 from the array of the parties in the Second Appeal. Civil Application is disposed of. G.S.Godbole,J.