1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11513 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11513 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Sapkal for Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Kasliwal for Respondent No.1, Advocate Mr. Jagtap for Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E and 3A to 3C. Respondent No.2B is already expired. 2. Short contention of Petitioner (original defendant No.1) is delay has been condoned without looking into the merits of the matter and the relevant events like death of original defendant No.3 way back in 1991, death of defendant No.2 in 1999 and reasons for not bringing legal heirs on record, within time, have not been looked into. 3. Advocate Mr. Kasliwal and Advocate Mr. Jagtap have supported the impugned order. They point out that application at Exhibit-20 was moved for bringing legal heirs of defendant defendant No.3 on record way back in 1992 and that application remained 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11513 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. undecided. They further urged that the present petitioner is defendant No.1, subsequent purchaser and hence all contentions raised on his behalf are unsustainable. According to them, on the relevant date the matter could not have been dismissed in default and suit had already proceeded exparte (without written statement) against present petitioner. 4. The petitioner/ defendant No.1 is subsequent purchaser. He has purchased property from defendant No.2. Said defendant expired in 1999 and no steps prima facie appear to have been taken for bringing his legal heirs on record or for setting aside abatement, if any. This aspect does not find any consideration in impugned order. The application at Exhibit-20, which is stated to be pending at the time of dismissal of the suit, was in relation to defendant No.3 and not in relation to defendant No.2. The 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11513 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Application at Exhibit-20 moved in 1992, therefore, remained pending till the suit was dismissed in 10th April, 2002. At this stage, Shri Sapkal contends that on 25th June, 1999 the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution against defendant Nos.2 and 3. Shri Kasliwal states that suit could not have been dismissed and on that day the stage in the matter was something else. 5. I do not find it necessary to go into all these niceties. The impugned order passed by the trial Court has to be self speaking. The respective counsel cannot be permitted to justify the order by pointing out the relevant observations in order sheet. 6. Hence, without observing anything on merit, impugned order dated 8th November, 2010 passed by 11th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad in M.A.R.L. No. 91 of 2003 is quashed and set aside and restored back to the file of that Court for taking 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11513 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law, after giving parties proper opportunity of hearing. 7. Writ petition is, thus, partly allowed. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:31/01/2011. ans/11513