IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 629 OF 2007 MR. BABANI GAD ... Petitioner Versus SMT. SUSHILABAI SALIGRAM GAD AND ANR., ... Respondents Ms. R. Chodankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Parsekar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 19th September, 2008 P.C. The petitioner is the original defendant no.1. The suit is filed by the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa being Regular Civil Suit No.22/2000/B. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant no.2/Prakash Hari Gad expired during the pendency of the suit and the petitioner was the sole defendant thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff applied for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 on record. They pointed out that by the application dated 16.03.2007, the defendant no.1 pointed out that the defendant no.2/Prakash Gad has expired. It was pointed out that one Vishwanath Hari Gad has also expired on 28.01.2003 and submitted a list of legal heirs. It was pointed out that the details of the legal heirs and legal representatives are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application. It was pointed out that Prakash Gad was a bachelor and his other legal heir is the original defendant no.1. Since the details were communicated on 16.3.2007, there is no delay caused. The petitioner, original defendant no.1 contested this application and pointed out that there is a delay in filing the same. The plaintiffs have not applied for condonation of delay in filing the application to bring the legal heirs on record and therefore, no order can be passed in their favour. It was pointed out by the first defendant before me that the defendant preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.09.2000 by filing an appeal before the District Judge, at Panaji being Misc. Civil Appeal No.19/2000. The defendant, original appellant by their application dated 29.03.2007 sought permission from the Appellate court to bring legal heirs of the respondent no.2 on record in the appeal pending before it. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs were aware of the fact of the death of the defendant no.2, therefore, the present application be dismissed. 2. The Trial Court has allowed the application by taking a liberal view of the matter. It has been pointed out that one of the heirs of the deceased is already a party defendant. Therefore, it was of the view that the application filed by the original plaintiff deserves to be allowed. 3. The view taken by the Trial Court is in consonance with the liberal principles to be applied while deciding such applications. An opportunity has been afforded to contest the claim on merits. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Interest of justice would be sub served, if the original plaintiffs are directed to pay costs, quantified at Rs.1500/- to be paid within a period of one week from the date of this order. Petition dismissed. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. lh/.