BAPU SHABI GADEKAR Vs. ANKUSH VISHHU PATEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Rule. The respondents though served have chosen not to put in appearance. Having regard to the relief sought, it is considered necessary to dispose of the petition forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner is one of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 522/1988 filed by one Shabi Gadekar in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pernem against the respondents. The suit was filed on 30. 12. 1988. The defendants in the said suit claimed tenancy and since the tenancy issue was pending before the Mamlatdar for adjudication, the said suit was kept sine die on 22. 6. 93. On 28. 2. 05, the LRs. of the original plaintiff appeared before the Court pursuant to the notice issued to the deceased plaintiff. On 18. 3. 05, the LRs. of the deceased plaintiff filed two applications, one for condonation of delay and the other for bringing LRs. of the plaintiff as well as deceased defendants on record. The trial Court, after hearing the other side, dismissed both the applications by common order dated 24. 3. 05 mainly on the ground that the LRs of the deceased were not brought on record within 90 days.

(3.) MR. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction illegally while passing the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the matter was looked after by the original plaintiff and the LRs. of the plaintiff were not aware of the development in the matter. According to Mr. Pangam, in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, all the legal representatives of the deceased were brought on record, in time. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the trial Court ought to have set aside the abatement, condoned the delay and allowed the application for bringing the LRs. on record. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and ors. v. Annabai Devram Kini and others, (2003) 10 SCC 691, the learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken a liberal view while dealing with the applications filed by the LRs. of the original plaintiff.