JAYALAXMI JANARDHAN WALAWALKAR Vs. LALCHAND LAXMICHAND KAPASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the parties.

(2.) THE writ petition relates to the year 1984 and earlier also the writ petition was dismissed for default and then restored. In the circumstances, I thought it fit to consider the matter on merits and in the absence of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 30-3-1984 and the available material.

(3.) ONE Janardan P. Walawalkar filed ejectment suit against Krishnaji L. Prabhu (respondent No. 2 herein) in the year 1972 in the Court of Small Causes. In that proceeding decree for eviction was passed against the respondent No. 2 herein. The decree holder Janardhan P. Walawalkar levied execution in which Lalchand Laxmichand Kapasi (respondent No. 1 herein) obstructed the execution of the said decree. The obstructionist notice was made absolute in favour of decree holder. Before the decree could be executed against obstructionist the decree holder Janardhan P. Walawalkar died. The present petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of deceased decree holder. The 1st respondent obstructionist also filed a regular declaratory suit against Janardhan P. Walawalkar and the respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of Small Causes and obtained an injunction order restraining decree holder Janardhan. P. Walawalkar from executing the decree passed against respondent No. 2. After the death of Janardhan P. Walawalkar, the respondent No. 1 who filed suit for declaration against him did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased Janardhan P. Walawalkar on record and, therefore, and application was made by present petitioner No. 6 Dinesh J. Walawalkar, one of the legal representatives before the trial Court that the suit filed by respondent No. 1 herein titled as R. A. D. Suit No. 2376 of 1973 has abated. Thereupon the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in Suit No. 2376 of 1973) made an application for impleadment of present petitioners as party defendants and consequential amendments. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 30-3-1964 allowed the said application which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.