IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1821 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2072 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5328 OF 1990 Smt.Vilasini Shreepad Nadkarni (Since Deceased) through her sole legal heir Mr.Mangesh Shreepad Nadkarni ...Petitioner V/s. Mrs.Shantadevi Jogindar Singh Gandhi (since deceased) through her legal heir- 1A) Shri Gurucharan Jogindar Singh Gandhi & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Mahesh Subramaniam i/b Mr.S.V.Pitre for Petitioner. Mr.K.S.Dewal for Respondent No.1A. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 20, 2009. JANUARY 20, 2009. JANUARY 20, 2009. P.C. 1. Both these Applications are disposed of by this common order. Civil Application No.1821 of 2008 is filed to bring on record heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner. There : 2 : is delay of only 81 days in taking out the said Application. 2. Civil Application No.2072 of 2008 is filed to bring on record heirs of deceased Respondent No.1. Indeed, there is delay of about one year and 21 days in taking out this Application. It is noticed that this Application has been filed during the pendency of former Application to bring on record heirs of deceased Petitioner. Obviously, the Advocate for the Petitioner must have realised the need for doing so in view of the fact that Respondent No.1 had died in anterior point of time on 13th January 2006, whereas, Petitioner died on 15th May 2007. It is also noticed that during the lifetime, the Petitioner himself wrote letter to the Advocate for the Respondents on 13th October 2006 to furnish necessary details of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.1. According to the heirs of Respondent No.1, necessary information was furnished to the Petitioner. : 3 : 3. The fact remains that the Petitioner during his lifetime, diligently pursued the matter which is evident from his communication sent to the Advocate for the Respondents dated 13th October 2006. Unfortunately, Petitioner expired on 15th May 2007. Even if no reason is forthcoming for non-filing of Application inspite of receiving information, in the interest of justice, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to allow both these Applications. As a matter of fact, in view of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Respondent and his legal heirs owe duty to furnish necessary details and also to take steps to bring on record heirs and legal representatives of deceased Respondent. 4. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, both these Applications are allowed. Amendment be carried out within two weeks from today, failing which, Writ Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. 5. If amendment is carried out in time, Writ : 4 : Petition to proceed under appropriate caption as per its turn. 6. Office to process the Writ Petition expeditiously as it pertains to year 1990 if there is no other office objections. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.