IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5446 OF 2007 Smt Meera Hiraji More ... Petitioner. Vs. Shri Anant Keshav Desai since deceased through his LR’s Mrs. Ujwala Hitendra Desai ... Respondent. M.S.Kumthekar for the Petitioner. V.E.Pereira for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 21.06.2007 of Small Causes Court at Bombay dismissing the Revision Application of the petitioner, thereby confirming the order dated 27.2.2007 in an Interim Notice, allowing the impleadement of the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the deceased original plaintiff for eviction under the Rent Act. Upon death of the original plaintiff the respondent has sought to be impleaded as legal representative of the original plaintiff on the basis of a will of the deceased original plaintiff. 4. The impugned order is challenged on two grounds, firstly that the petitioner has not been served the Interim Notice No.2208 of 2006 of the respondent for getting herself impleaded in the suit as the legal representative of the deceased original Plaintiff. Secondly that since the probate petition filed by the respondent is pending and the rights of the respondent have yet to be decided, and it cannot be said that the respondent is the legal representative of the deceased original plaintiff and that this fact of probate petition being pending in High Court is suppressed by the respondent. 5. Undisputedly, the application has been filed by the respondent within 90 days of the death of the original plaintiff. It is also an admitted position that the probate petition is pending in this Court in respect of the rights of the respondent which probate petition has been converted into Suit No.75 of 2006. These aspects are considered in the impugned order and the Trial Court has observed that the petitioner can file an additional written statement and deny the rights of the respondent in respect of the suit property and that no substantive right of the petitioner is affected by the order dated 27.2.2007 and that the petitioner can also challenge the maintainability of the suit in the respondent’s capacity as legal representative. I am informed that an application has been made in the trial Court by the petitioner raising a preliminary issue in that regard. 6. I have perused the material on record including the impugned order dated 21st June, 2006. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order so as to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]