( 1 ) wp4071.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4071 OF 2011 Smt. Shashikala Shamsundar Khedkar .. Petitioner VERSUS Satish Soma Bhole & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22.09.2011 P.C. :- 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 24th March, 2011, passed by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking condonation of delay as well as for permitting her to file written statement as legal representative of deceased defendant in Suit No. 247 of 1999. 2. The petitioner admitted following facts. 3. The petitioner and her mother were parties to this suit as defendant Nos.2 and 3. This suit was filed in 1999 and soon thereafter they were served with summons. The petitioner’s mother was old then and was residing with her at Nanded. She admitted that her mother did not want to oppose that suit and even did not want her daughter i.e. the petitioner to oppose the suit. It seems that this decision ( 2 ) wp4071.11 was taken by the petitioner’s mother/defendant No.2 probably because other 12 defendants who were members of her own family were opposing the dispute. The subject matter of the dispute is a joint family property situated at Jalgaon. As said above, the mother of the petitioner/defendant No.2 did not want to file written statement and stayed away from the suit and eventually the Trial Court passed the order that the suit would proceed against her ex-parte. This order was never opposed by the petitioner’s mother. She died in 2007. It is, thus, clear that for more than seven years the petitioner’s mother intentionally avoided this litigation. After death of her mother, respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs informed the Court that the petitioner who is defendant No.3 is also a legal representative of deceased defendant No.2. So, the Court allowed them to treat her as such. In view of this development, the petitioner thought that she would be able to file written statement as her mother’s representative. She, in fact, prepared a written statement and sought permission of the Court to file the same. The learned Judge of the Trial Court refused permission to file such written statement. The matter, thereafter, came to this Court and this Court suggested to the petitioner that she should make an application and prove that she is entitled to get ex-parte order passed against her mother set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the applications of which the impugned orders were passed. The first application was seeking condonation of delay in making application seeking setting aside the order to proceed with the suit ex-parte ( 3 ) wp4071.11 against her mother and the second application sought setting aside the ex-parte order passed against her. 4. It is settled law that a representative of deceased party cannot take a different stand than that taken by such party. Here it is very clear that the petitioner’s mother did not want to oppose the suit and thereby suggested that the suit of respondent No.1 & 2/plaintiffs should be decreed. Now, as her representative the petitioner cannot take stand to oppose the suit. Her application seeking setting aside ex-parte order, thus, was rightly rejected. She does not have a right to get the order set aside, because she is not allowed to take different stand than the stand her mother took of impliedly consenting to the decree. The writ petition is dismissed. In view of this the impugned order of refusal for condonation of delay fades in insignificance. 5. The oral request for continuation of earlier order of interim relief is refused. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp4071.11ok