Bombay High Court
AMRUTRAO SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH DECEASED THROUGH LRS AMAR AMRUTRAO DESHMUKHversusKANTILAL LALCHAND BORA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court allowed the addition of respondent No.7, restrained him from recording legal heirs, denied a stay of execution, and condoned the delay while setting aside the abatement.
Summary
The applicant sought to add the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Beed (respondent No.7) to a pending second appeal and to restrain him from recording the names of legal heirs of the suit property until the appeal is finally decided. The court noted that an application had been filed by respondent No.4 to record such names, and that allowing the addition would prevent potential injustice. The court allowed the amendment, ordered a restraining direction against respondent No.7, and rejected the respondent's request for a stay of execution of the order. In a related application, the applicant requested condonation of a 30‑day delay in filing a civil application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record and to set aside an abatement. The court found the delay not deliberate, condoned it, set aside the abatement, and permitted the amendment within two weeks. Both applications were disposed in favour of the applicant.
Issues considered
- Whether the court may permit the addition of a new respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Land Records) to the second appeal and restrain him from acting on the suit property pending final disposal.
- Whether a stay of execution of the order adding the new respondent should be granted.
- Whether a 30‑day delay in filing a civil application for bringing legal representatives of a deceased respondent can be condoned and the abatement set aside.
Subjects
- addition of party
- amendment of appeal
- restraining order
- stay of execution
- condonation of delay
- abatement
- legal heirs
- land records
- second appeal
- civil application
Judgment
979 CA NO. 6628 OF 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
979 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6628 OF 2026
IN SA/76/2020
Amrutrao Shankarrao Deshmukh Deceased Through Lrs Amar
Amrutrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
Kantilal Lalchand Bora And Others
...
Mr. Dighe Vitthal Haribhau, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. Chandrakant Patil h/f Mr. A. S. Sawant, Advocate for
Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6377 OF 2025 IN SA/76/2020WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2020 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8752 OF 2020 IN SA/76/2020
….
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 21.08.2026
PER COURT :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6628 OF 2026 IN SA/76/2020
1. This application is filed seeking the following prayers:
“B) To allow the applicants to add present
respondent No.7 as a party respondent in the present
Second Appeal.
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of present
Second Appeal, to restrain the respondent No.7- Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, Parali Vaijanath,
District Beed from taking any steps / decision on the
1 of 5
(( 2 )) 979 CA NO. 6628 OF 2026
application submitted by respondents for recording the
name of legal heirs to the suit property, which is the
subject matter of the present Second Appeal and for
that purpose necessary orders may kindly be passed.
D) Pending hearing and final disposal of present
Second Appeal, to grant stay to the further proceeding
initiated by respondent Nos.1 to 5 before the respondent
No.7 for recording the names of legal heirs to the suit
property, which is a subject matter of present Second
Appeal and for that purpose necessary orders may kindly
be passed.”
2. On perusal of the application, it appears that Respondent
No.4 has submitted an application dated 19.02.2026 before Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, Parali Vaijanath, District Beed for
entering his name and the names of others as legal heirs in respect of
the suit property. Therefore, the present applicants have prayed for
adding Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Parli Vaijnath,
District Beed, as respondent No.7 in the present proceedings.
3. Though the learned Advocate for the respondents has
opposed the application, prima facie, it appears from the application
2 of 5
(( 3 )) 979 CA NO. 6628 OF 2026
dated 19.02.2026 that the names of the alleged legal representatives
are likely to be entered in the record. Therefore, in the interest of
justice, it is necessary to allow the application by adding the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, Parli Vaijnath, District Beed, as
Respondent No.7 and to restrain Respondent No.7 from making any
entry or recording the name of any person in respect of the suit
property until the final disposal of the Second Appeal, as prayed for.
4. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘C’
and ‘D’. The Appellant is directed to carry out the amendment by
adding Respondent No.7 in the title of the Second Appeal within a
period of two weeks from today. The application is accordingly
disposed of.
5. Learned Advocate for the respondents prays for stay to the
execution of this order, as he intends to challenge the same before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, particularly the fact that the application before
Respondent No.7 is likely to be decided on 24.08.2026, it would not
be proper to grant stay to the execution of this order. The prayer for
stay to the execution of this order is rejected.
3 of 5
(( 4 )) 979 CA NO. 6628 OF 2026
7. Stand over to 07.09.2026 at 02:30 p.m.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6377 OF 2025
1. Heard learned Advocates for both sides.
2. This is an application for condonation of 30 days delay
caused in filing the Civil Application for bringing the legal
representatives of deceased Respondent on record as well as for
setting aside abatement and permission to bring the L.Rs. of deceased
Respondent on record.
3. Learned Advocates for the respondents strongly opposed
the application.
4. Perused the application. Considering the reasons stated
therein, it appears that the delay is not deliberately caused. Hence,
the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
a. The application is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘A’ and ‘B’.
b. The delay of 30 days caused in filing the Civil
Application for bringing the legal representatives of
deceased Respondent on record is condoned.
c. The abatement is set aside.
4 of 5
(( 5 )) 979 CA NO. 6628 OF 2026
d. Permission to bring the legal representatives of
of deceased Respondent on record is granted. The
amendment be carried out within a period of two
weeks from today. If the amendment is not carried
out within the stipulated period, the applicants shall
be liable to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Advocates’
Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co-operative
Society, High Court Premises, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
5 of 5
Checking your session…