GOVIND BHUDHA KANULKAR Vs. SURANGI ROHIDAS HARMALKAR

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 controversy involved in the matter, heard forthwith.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioners who are the plaintiffs No. 2 and 4 in Regular Civil Suit No. 127/89 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pernem, assail the order dated 30 March, 2005 dismissing the application dated 10. 3. 2005 filed by the petitioners for setting aside abatement, condonation of delay and for bringing heirs on record of the deceased plaintiffs No. 1 and 3. The original plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 expired on 2. 11. 02 and 6. 3. 05 respectively. The suit which was filed in the year 1989 was adjourned sine die from 16. 3. 96 since the issue of tenancy raised by the defendants was referred to the Mamlatdar for adjudication. According to Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, all the legal representatives of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 who were opponents in the said case were brought on record, in time.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 4 in the application filed by them for setting aside abatement is that the plaintiffs No. 2 and 4 being Villagers were not aware that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 had to be also brought on record in the suit. When the suit was taken up for hearing, the defendants/ respondents opposed the application and by the impugned order dated 30. 3. 2005, the trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the LRs. of the deceased plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 were not brought on record within 90 days and, therefore, the delay could not be condoned. The trial Court further observed that any person can be added as party Under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.