( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2008 Narottam Jainarayan Kabra Since deceased,by L.Rs. Shakuntalabai Narottam Kabra and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Sheshappa Narayan Rakhewar Since deceased, by L.Rs. Sushilabai Sheshappa Rakhewar and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Rathi, advocate for respondents No. 2 (1) to 2 (6). ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The legal representatives of original appellant ( 2 ) No.2, who died in 1998, were sought to be brought on record in 2004. An application was filed in order to bring the legal representatives on record by the legal representatives themselves. They sought substitution on the ground that they were not aware about pendency of the appeal. They submitted that they are the wife, sons and daughter of deceased appellant no.2 – Haji Abdul Rahim. They further contended that though the L.R. Petition ought to have been filed within 90 days as contemplated under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, yet, due to absence of knowledge regarding pendency of the appeal, they filed the application at late stage. 3. It appears that the application (Exh-17) was opposed by the petitioners. It was pointed out that legal representatives of deceased appellant No.2 Haji Abdul Rahim were not taken on record when the matter was pending before this Court in appellate jurisdiction and it was only after remitting of the same to the first Appellate Court that such an application was moved. It was contended that the application filed by the legal representatives was barred by limitation. It was ( 3 ) further asserted that the said application was not accompanied by separate application for condonation of delay with substantial reasons to condone the delay. 4. The learned District Judge granted the application by impugned order dated 29-10-2007. The order reads as follows : “Rev. application may, in the interest of justice, application is allowed, by condoning the delay, if any.” 5. Not only that the impugned order is cryptic but it does not reflect any substantial reason for allowing the application and condoning delay. It also does not show that the learned advocates for the parties were heard before passing such order. The impugned order reflects total non-application of judicial mind. The judicial orders must be backed up by reasons. The impugned order is arbitrary, without reasons and rendered casually. Such perfunctory exercise of judicial discretion must be deprecated. For these reasons, the ( 4 ) impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with direction that the application (Exh-17) filed in appeal (R.C.A. No. 25/2001) (now R.C.A. No. 16/2004) be heard and considered on merits within a reasonable time. The first Appellate Court is expected to pass appropriate judicial order having regard to the questions agitated by the petitioners/respondents in appeal. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP4647-08