Mr. Andrew Ignatius Since ... vs Mr. Anthony Derek Rebello Since ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14609 Bom

                                                         13-3-IA2007-21INFAST305555-19.DOC

                                                                                     Santosh
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2007 OF 2021
SANTOSH                                               IN
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                              FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 30555 OF 2019
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2021.10.07
17:46:24 +0530
                      Andrew Ignatius (deceased)
                      Mr. Harsh Andrew Ignatius (Legal Heir &
                      representative of deceased appellant/
                      applicant/ori. Defendant)                              ...Applicant/
                                                                                 Appellant
                                          Versus
                      Anthony Derek Rebello                                ...Respondent/
                                                                             Ori.Plaintiff


                      Mr. Santosh Vishwakarma, for the Applicant/Appellant.
                      Mr. Kunal Bhange, a/w Abhijit Patil & Yash Joglekar, for the
                           Respondent.

                                                   CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.

                                                   DATED :      6th OCTOBER, 2021
                      PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Vishwakarma, the learned Counsel for the

applicant.

2. This application is taken out to bring the legal

representative of the original applicant Mr. Andrew Ignatius,

who passed away on 18th November, 2020.

3. The applicant Mr. Harsh Andrew Ignatius claims to be the

sole representative of the deceased applicant, who preferred the

application in order to prosecute the appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 26th July, 2018, passed by the

13-3-IA2007-21INFAST305555-19.DOC

learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, in Suit No.331

of 2015.

4. The respondent has resisted the application by filing an

affidavit-in-reply. The principal ground of resistance is that the

applicant has no locus standi to maintain the application as the

claim of being a legal representative of deceased Andrew

Ignatius is, on the one hand, contentious and, on the other

hand, the said Andrew Ignatius was himself a trespasser and

thus no right to sue survives.

5. The contentions on behalf of the respondent, can be

considered while determining the appeal on merits. It would be

expedient to permit the applicant to implead himself in the

stated capacity of the legal representative of the deceased

Andrew Ignatius, lest there would be no person to prosecute

remedies of the deceased defendant.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the application stands allowed

in terms of prayer clause (a) without prejudice to the

contentions of the respondent, as regards the locus of the

applicant.

7. Necessary amendment be carried out in the appeal-memo

within a period of two weeks.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]