ATIYABHAI KARNABHAI VADHIYA Vs. SAVJIBHAI MALDEBHAI GORAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners original plaintiffs have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 14/7/2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh below application Ex. 132 in Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 2002, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the application Ex. 132 submitted by the petitioners to bring them on record as heirs of defendant No. 10.

(2.) IN Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 2002 filed by the respondents herein original plaintiffs, father of the petitioners was joined as defendant No. 10 who expired on 19/5/2003. That thereafter, the petitioners, as heirs of deceased Labhuben Dayabhai Gorad defendant No. 10, submitted application Ex. 132 in July, 2006 for bringing them on record as heirs of deceased Labhuben original defendant No. 10. However, the learned trial court dismissed the said application by holding that neither there is any application to condone the delay, nor there is any prayer to set aside the abatement and consequently the petitioners are not permitted to be brought on record as the heirs of the defendant No. 10. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 14/7/2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh below application Ex. 132 in Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 2002, the petitioners heirs of original defendant No. 10 have preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AS stated above, though served nobody appears on behalf of the original plaintiffs. Having heard Mr. Adhvaryu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and considering the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the trial court has taken too technical view in dismissing the said application and in not permitting the petitioners to be brought on record as heirs of original defendant No. 10. It appears that the learned trial court has dismissed the said application only on the ground that there is no prayer of the petitioners to condone the delay in preferring the application for bringing the heirs on record and there is no prayer to set aside the abatement.