:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 881 OF 1996 Namdeo Ganpat Sonawane ..Applicant Vs. 1. Smt. Laxmibai Dyanoba Newaskar and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for applicant. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude i/by Mr. A.V. Anturkar for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : March 19, 2009. Date : March 19, 2009. Date : March 19, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sadavarte the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is impleaded as the sole respondent in First Appeal No. 881 of 1996 which has been admitted and is pending for final disposal. The applicant prays for directions to appellant nos.1/1 to 1/3 to bring the present respondent nos.4 to 10 on record as the LRs of original appellant and thus add :2: them as appellant nos.1/4 to 1/10. 2. Shri Rajendra Newaskar, who is appellant no.1/2, has filed affidavit-in-reply and pointed out that his father Shri Dnyanoba Laxman Newaskar died on 17/4/1997 and while allowing Civil Application No. 3619 of 1997 as per order dated 27/6/1997 appellant nos.1/1 to 1/3 have been brought on record as the LRs of the original appellant. He further states that the present respondent nos.4 to 10 are not required to be brought on record in view of the registered Release Deed (Annexure-A1) and irrevocable power of attorney (Annexure -A2). It has been further pointed out that respondent nos.4 to 9 are the daughters of the original appellant and respondent no.10 is the wife of the original appellant and mother of respondent nos.1 to 9. 3. We have noted that the original appellant has been duly represented by appellant nos.1/1 to 1/3 and in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.1/2 i.e. Rajendra Newaskar, it is not necessary to entertain this application and in any case for :3: deciding the pending appeal the suit property of the original appellant is duly represented by appellant nos.1/1 to 1/3. 4. Hence the application is rejected. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)