1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2009 Amr Vijaysingh Rananavare ..Petitioner versus Prataprao Shankarrao Rananavare ..Respondent Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioner CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. The petitioner has been impleaded as 4 th defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent for partition and separate possession. The suit was filed in the year 1994. An application was made by the petitioner in the year 1999 praying that order passed by the trial Court to proceed without written statement of the petitioner be set aside and the written statement be taken on record. By the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, the said application has been rejected. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for 2 the petitioner, I find no error in the impugned order. The learned Judge has recorded that summons was duly served to the petitioner on 8.11.1994. The application was made by the petitioner in the year 2009. Therefore, it is difficult to find fault with the impugned order. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the suit the first defendant who is admittedly having a share in the suit property died and the said first defendant had executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner. He stated that the widow of the first defendant was brought on record, but subsequently, even the said widow has expired. He submits that rejection of this petition will come in the way of the petitioner as the petitioner desires to apply to the trial court for impleading himself as a party to the suit in his capacity as legal representative of the first defendant on the basis of the Will. 3 3. The apprehension of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is uncalled for. The petitioner has not been impleaded in the suit by the plaintiff in his capacity as legal representative of the first defendant. The petitioner is claiming heirship on the basis of the alleged Will executed by the first defendant. Notwithstanding the rejection of the petition it is obvious that petitioner can always take out appropriate application in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. Subject to what is observed above, petition is rejected. (A.S.Oka, J.)