1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5045 OF 2010 Maruti Dagadu Pabale ..Petitioner V/s Dilip Baburao Kharade and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.S. S. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 30th June, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He filed suit (R.C.S. No. 162/2008). The Court bailiff reported that defendant Satyabhama was not alive, and therefore, service could not be effected on her. The petitioner was not knowing the real fact about death of defendant Satyabhama. According to the petitioner, he had also no knowledge about the legal representatives left by her. A notice was published vide Exhibit-15 in a daily newspaper titled “Lokmat” and in response thereto, the respondents appeared before the Court. They submitted application (Exhibit-20) for their substitution as legal representatives. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the substitution of the respondents in place of deceased 2 Satyabhama. 3. The respondents alleged that they are distinctly related to deceased Satyabhama as per the genealogy tree submitted by them in paragraph 4 of the application. They further alleged that defendant Satyabhama had died on 27.06.1989 at village Pondwadi, Tq.Karmala, Dist.Solapur. They contended that the petitioner was knowing about the death of deceased defendant Satyabhama and yet filed a false suit against dead person. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that substitution of respondents was improper because they had not proved their relationship with deceased defendant Satyabhama. He argued that the impugned order is arbitrary and that the trial Court allowed substitution without making any enquiry regarding locus-standi of the respondents. 5. It appears that deceased defendant Satyabhama was a member of a scheduled tribe called “Ramoshi”. It is a common knowledge, the members of Ramoshi tribe are not literate with some exceptions, of course, and deceased Satyabhama being a rustic woman, it was not expected that she would leave any documents like will deed or transfer deed. The trial Court has duly 3 considered the relevant aspects and allowed the application. The trial Court shall however examined whether deceased defendant Satyabhama was not alive at the time of filing of the suit and if, it is found to be true position then the suit itself will have to be held as none-st because it was filed against dead person. The trial Court may also conduct enquiry about the status of the respondents as legal representatives of deceased Satyabhama, before proceedings further with the suit. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp5045.10