1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 2334 & 2328 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2000 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ........Applicant versus Ashok Chopra ........ Respondent. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar Sr.adv. with Mr. J.J. Xavier adv. for the applicant Ms. Bina Rao i/b. M/s. Bina & Rao & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED : 30TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. These applications are for condoning the delay in filing the applications as also for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of respondent Shri Ashok Chopra, since deceased. It is not in dispute that the sole respondent expired on 18-11-2008. It is also not in dispute that after the death of the sole respondent in C.A. No.2334/2010 letter dated 6-2-2009 and in C.A. No. 2328/2010 letter dated 17-2-2009 was addressed to the law officer of the applicant stating therein the names of heirs and legal representatives of sole respondent. The xerox copy of the death certificate was also enclosed along with this letter. 2. In the applications it is been averred that the advocate for the sole respondent did not inform the Corporation and/or legal 2 department about the death of the respondent. It is further asserted that the applicants did not have any knowledge about the death of the sole respondent. The licence department of the applicants came to know from the legal department about the death of the sole respondent and consequently wrote a letter to the Pune Municipal Corporation. 3. The applications are resisted by filing reply wherein it is asserted that after the death of the sole respondent, by communication dated 6th February 2009, the law officer of the applicant was intimated about the death of the sole respondent in C.A. No.2334/2010 and by communication dated 17-2-2009 in C.A. No.2328/2010. Along with the letters, the zero copy of the death certificate was also enclosed. The said letters also set out the names of heirs and legal representatives of the sole respondent. Present applications are therefore stoutly opposed on the ground that the applicants have not correctly stated the reasons for condoning the delay. On the other hand, they have not disclosed about the letters dated 6-2-2009 and 17-2-2009 addressed by the respondent’s advocate. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. Perusal of the record indicates that the First Appeal was admitted after hearing both the sides. It is also the matter of record that the applicants were aware of the death of the sole respondent after service of letters dated 6-2-2009 and 17-2-2009. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicants were unaware of the death of the sole respondent. If the 3 applications are rejected, it will amount to dismissing the First Appeal on technical grounds and not on merits. If on the other hand, the applications are allowed at the highest, it will be decided on merits rather than on technical ground. In order to do substantial justice between the parties, the applications deserve to be allowed. At the same time, considering the fact that the applicants have not properly explained the delay, in my opinion, the applications deserve to be allowed subject to payment of costs. 5. Applications are allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- in each application to the respondent within one week from today. Payment of costs may be made in cash. After payment of costs, amendment to be carried out within two weeks. (R.G. KETKAR, J.)