1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6529 OF 2009 Vasant Hindurao Mane ...Petitioner vs. Bapu Ramu Gurav and others ...Respondents Mr.Vijay Killedar for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal for challenging the decree passed by the trial court. The first respondent in appeal expired. Therefore, an application was made by the petitioner for setting aside abatement and for bringing the respondent No.1-a on record of the appeal. By order dated 17 th August 2008, abatement of the appeal as against the respondent no.1 was set aside. A separate order was passed on the same day for bringing on record the respondent no.1-a as legal representative of the deceased first respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent preferred an application pointing out that there are other legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1. On 3 rd November 2008, the District court directed the respondent no.1-a to furnish names and addresses of the other legal representatives. Accordingly, on 10 th November 2008, the names and addresses of the other legal representatives were furnished by the respondent no.1-a. On the basis of the said information, on 3 rd January 2009, an application was 2 made by the petitioner for bringing other legal representatives of the respondent no.1 on record. By the impugned order, on 19 th June 2009, the said application has been rejected by the learned District Judge by holding that the same was not within limitation. 2 The learned District Judge has completely ignored the fact that on 17 th August 2008 an order was passed setting aside the abatement and for permitting one of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 to be brought on record. The application which is rejected by the impunged order was for bringing the other legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 on record. The fact that the abatement of the appeal as against respondent no.1 was set aside and the fact that the respondent no.1-a was already brought on record has not been considered by the learned District Judge. The learned Judge will hear all concerned parties before passing the order on the said application. Therefore, application made by the petitioner at Exh.79 will have to be reconsidered by the learned District Judge. 3 Accordingly, I pass the following order : i)The order dated 19 th June 2009 is quashed and set aside. ii)The learned District Judge will decide the application at Exh.79 afresh in the light of observations made in this order and will thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. JUDGE