(1) 13.WP7327.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7327 OF 2026 Namdeo S/o Nago Borikar (died) Thr. Lrs. Sumitra Wd/o Namdeo Borikar (died), Shankar s/o Namdeo Borkar & Ors. VERSUS Pandurang S/o Gangaram Borikar (died) Thr. Lrs. Sitabai Wd/o Pandurang Borikar (died) Thr. Lrs. Rakesh Laxman Sindekar & Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.K. Thengri, Advocate for the Petitioner(s). CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Thengri, learned counsel for the petitioners. The order impugned in the petition is dated 06.05.2023. There is no explanation, much less a plausible one, for filing the writ petition after more than three years. 2. As far as the merits are concerned, I have perused the impugned order passed on 06.05.2023 Below Exh. 165 & 177. The trial Court, in its own discretion and wisdom, has framed points and has given elaborate findings regarding each point. The said application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the intervenors for substitution of their names as legal representatives of the original applicant, namely Sitabai Pandurang Borikar. The applicants have also examined themselves and have been subjected to cross-examination. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence and has reached the conclusion that the applicants are the legal representatives and has permitted them to intervene in place of the deceased. There is no Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:12463 (2) 13.WP7327.26 perversity in the impugned order. Apart from the aspect of delay, the petition is meritless and is liable to be rejected. 3. Petition is accordingly rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham