Arun S/O Sitaram Vaidya vs Sakharamsingh S/O Gopalsingh ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 717 Bom

                                1                                        wp3357.16




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.



 WRIT PETITION NO.3357 OF 2016


 Arun s/o Sitaram Vaidya,
 Aged about 59 years, Occ. - Business,
 R/o Ganjward, Chandrapur, Tahsil -
 Chandrapur, District - Chandrapur.                    ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 Sakharamsingh s/o Gopalsingh Gawalpanchi,
 since dead through his Legal Representatives.

 1) Deepak Sakharamsingh Gwalpanchi,
     Aged about 57 years, Occ. - Not known,
     R/o Ganj Ward, Chandrapur, Tahsil 
     and District Chandrapur.

 2) Prakash Sakharamsingh Gwalpanchi,
     Aged about 65 years, Occ. - Not known,
     R/o Ganj Ward, Chandrapur, Tahsil 
     and District Chandrapur.

 3) Dilip Sakharamsingh Gwalpanchi,
     Aged about 49 years, Occ. - Not known,
     R/o Ganj Ward, Chandrapur, Tahsil 
     and District Chandrapur.

 4) Chaya Chandansingh Pawar,
     Aged about 56 years, Occ. - Housewife,
     R/o Near Mahadeo Mandir, Bapupeth,
     Chandrapur, Tahsil and District 
     Chandrapur.                                       ....       RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:41:29 :::
                                       2                                           wp3357.16




 ______________________________________________________________
         Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner, 
      Smt. Renu Sirpurkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 14 MARCH, 2017.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the

petitioner and Mrs. Renu Sirpurkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1

to 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The original plaintiff has challenged the order passed by

the trial Court rejecting the application (Exhibit No.77) filed by him

seeking permission to bring on record legal heirs of the defendant.

The application is rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has not filed

application praying for setting side the abatement of the suit.

4. It is undisputed that the application seeking permission to

bring on record legal heirs of the defendant is filed within ninety days

i.e. within the prescribed limitation. Therefore, there was no need to

3 wp3357.16

file application praying for setting aside the abatement of the suit.

5. Hence, the following order :

(i) The impugned order is set aside.

(ii) The application (Exhibit No.77) is allowed.

(iii) The plaintiff is permitted to bring on record the legal heirs

of the defendant.

(iv) The trial Court shall proceed with the civil suit on merits,

according to law.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,

the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar