SHANTABAI MADHAV YADAV Vs. BEHRAM K. GODREJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to delete Tahasildar (ALT), SDO and MRT from the array of the parties. The leave as sought is granted. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

(2.) Mr. Farhad Chindhi who is Respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 5603 of 2023, Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 5551 of 2023 and Respondent No. 5 in W.P No. 5545 of 2023 is not represented in these proceedings. However, he had not appeared in the proceedings before Tahsildar (ALT), Haveli in Tenancy Case No. 2 of 2020 fled by the Petitioners. He was one of the party Appellants in the Tenancy Appeal No. 26 of 2021 fled before the SDO, Haveli, Pune and one of the Applicants in Revision Application No. 8 of 2022 fled before the MRT, Pune. Similarly Mr. Aashdin Kersi Billimoria and Smt. Arnawaz Kersi Billimoria, who are Respondent Nos. 9A and 9B in W. P. No. 5603 of 2023, Respondent No. 8A and 8B in W.P No. 5551 of 2023 and Respondent No. 7A and 7B in W.P No. 5545 of 2023 and who were not parties before the Tahsildar (ALT) and SDO and were brought on record before the MRT, Pune as heirs of Kersi Billimoria were Co-Applicants in Revision Application No. 8 of 2022 fled before the MRT, Pune. They are also not represented in these Writ Petitions. However, since their co-appellants before the SDO in Appeal and co-applicants in the Revision fled before the MRT, Pune are duly represented by Advocates and further, in view of the order proposed to be passed herein viz. setting aside the Judgment and Order dtd. 16/4/2020 passed by the Tahsildar (ALT) and remanding the entire proceedings for a de novo hearing, service of notice on the aforesaid unrepresented Respondents is waived.

(3.) Rule. Respective Advocates for the parties represented by them waive service of notice of Rule. By Consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.