IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 675 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 2011 SMT. NATALIA S. REBELLO AND 8 ORS., ... Applicants Versus SMT. NELLY REBELLO AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agni,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 21st July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz, learned Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 have been served in Writ Petition No.127/2011. However, they have chosen not to put in their appearance. 2. By order dated 28.4.2011 passed in Writ Petition no. 127/2011 the request of the petitioners to delete respondent no.6 was granted at the risk of the petitioners. By this present application the applicants seek recall of the order and issue of notice to respondent no.6 in view of the objection raised on behalf of respondent no.1 that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of deletion of respondent no.6. 3. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that since respondent no. 6 could not be served therefore she sought leave to delete respondent no.6 and now it is realised that in view of the objection raised on behalf of respondent no.1 that petition filed may not be maintainable in the absence of respondent no.6, applicants seek to join respondent no. 6 in the petition. Mrs. Agni, learned Advocate for the applicants submits that applicants should not suffer because of wrong step taken by her by deleting respondent no. 6 on the ground that he was not served. In support of her case she place reliance upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra, (2011) 2 SCC 705. 4. On behalf of respondent no.1, Mr. Diniz, learned Advocate submitted that the applicants having once made a prayer for deleting respondent no.6 cannot be again permitted to join respondent no. 6, only upon the objection being taken on behalf of respondent no.1. 5. At the request of Mrs. Agni, learned Advocate for the applicants, respondent no. 6 was allowed to be deleted from the cause title of the petition at the risk of the petitioners. From the order dated 28.4.2011, it appears that steps were taken by learned Counsel for the petitioners since respondent no. 6 could not be served. 6. In the interest of justice and in view of the statement made by Mrs. Agni, that it was at her instance that respondent no.6 was deleted from the cause title, I deem it appropriate to allow the application by recalling order dated 28.4.2011. Order dated 28.4.2011 is recalled subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs.1500/- to the respondent no.1. Costs shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks. Liberty to respondent no.1 to withdraw the costs. 7. Application stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn