05. CAO 723 of 2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.723/2025; WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.724/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.725/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.727/22025 AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.21453/2024 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.350/2012 (D) Dr. Vinodkumar s/o Nayanprakash Adlakhiya ...Versus… Mannaprasad s/o Laxmanprasad Pathak (now deceased) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. A.M. Ghare & Mr. P.V. Ghare, Advocates for applicant Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 02/07/2026 1. After admission of appeal vide order dated 04/10/2013, the sole respondent expired on 25/12/2013. Pursis in this regard is filed by the learned Advocate for the respondent on 09/03/2015. Learned Advocate for the appellant states that although Pursis was filed, copy of the same was not served upon him. 2. Perusal of Pursis does not indicate any endorsement regarding service of the same. Private paper- book, which was filed by the appellant on 16/04/2015 was 2026:BHC-NAG:8373 05. CAO 723 of 2025.odt 2 received by the learned Advocate for the respondent on 15/04/2019. Appeal was listed before the learned Registrar (Judicial) for taking steps for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. It is stated that at this stage that the appellant gathered knowledge with respect to demise of the respondent. It is stated in the application that the appellant was not aware about the names and other particulars of legal representatives of deceased respondent and in such circumstances since legal representatives were not brought on record, on 16/01/2020, a formal order was passed recording that the appeal stood abated on failure on the part of the appellant to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. 3. The appellant has filed application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. Apart from this, Misc. Civil Application St. No.21453/2024 is filed in order to assail the order passed by the learned Registrar on 16/01/2020 recording that the appeal has abated. This application is filed along with Civil Application for condonation of delay. 4. The proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent have filed reply, in which, lack of knowledge of demise of respondent and statement that the appellant was unaware about the names of legal representatives are not specifically denied. The appellant is contesting the litigation since the year 2001. Appeal is of the year 2012. Appeals of almost the same period are pending for final hearing before this Court. 05. CAO 723 of 2025.odt 3 5. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, in the considered opinion if this Court, it will be appropriate to afford opportunity to the appellant to contest the appeal on merits. 6. In view of the aforesaid, application for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent on record, application for setting aside abatement of the appeal against deceased respondent and application for permission to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent on record are allowed. In view of the aforesaid, Misc. Civil Application St. No.21453/2024 will also have to be allowed by condoning the delay caused in filing the said application. 7. Mr. Joharapurkar, learned Advocate points out that the deceased respondent has executed a Will dated 01/07/2013 with respect to suit property in favour of Suresh, Laxminarayan, Ramnarayan and Naresh and as such their names only be brought on record as legal representatives. However, it is not in dispute that apart from these legatees, there are other Class-I legal heirs of deceased respondent. Therefore, in order to avoid any complications in future, all the Class-I legal heirs including the legatees, are permitted to be arrayed as respondents. 8. It is informed that one of the legal representative Leelabai has also expired. She is widow of the original respondent. All her legal representatives are on record. 9. Permission is granted to delete the name of Leelabai from the array of the respondents. 05. CAO 723 of 2025.odt 4 10. Advocate Mr. Joharapurkar waives service of notice for all the legal representatives. 11. List the Second Appeal for final hearing on 24/07/2026 along with Second Appeal No.392/2010. 12. Civil Applications as well as Misc. Civil Application are allowed and disposed of accordingly. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Wadkar