Bombay High Court

SMT PARVATABAI PUNDLIK TIDKE SINCE DECEASEDversusNATWARLAL CHIMANLAL SHAH

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the legal heirs could be transposed as respondents and may be represented by a single counsel.

Summary

The legal heirs of deceased Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 filed Interim Application No. 6616 of 2026 seeking to be transposed as respondents in Second Appeal No. 540 of 2005. All original appellants had died, and while the legal representative of Appellant No. 2 was already on record, the heirs of Nos. 1 and 3 had engaged a different counsel. The court examined whether the heirs could be substituted as respondents and whether a single advocate could represent all parties. It held that the substitution was permissible and that Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari could represent the heirs alongside the existing counsel. Consequently, the court ordered the necessary amendment to bring the heirs on record as respondents and allowed the representation by a single advocate. The interim application was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the legal heirs of deceased appellants may be transposed as respondents in an ongoing appeal.
Whether a single advocate may represent multiple parties (the legal heirs) in the same appeal.

Subjects

interim application
transposition of parties
representation
succession
civil appellate jurisdiction
procedure

Judgment

Renuka                                            9-IA-6616-2026.docx


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6616 OF 2026
                                     IN
                   SECOND APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2005
Smt Parvatabai Pundlik Tidke Since                 ...Applicant
Deceased
                  V/s.

Natwarlal Chimanlal Shah                          ...Respondent
                              ________________
Mr. Rohit P. Karhadkar for Applicant.
Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari with Mr. Bipin Singh i/b Mr. P. N. Joshi for Appellant
No. 2.
Mr. Aryavrat S. Dube i/b Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for Respondent.
                              ________________
                                        CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATED: 29 AUGUST 2026.


P.C.:


1)          Interim Application No. 6616 of 2026 is filed by the legal
heirs of Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 for their transposition as Respondents in
the Appeal. All the Appellants in the Appeal have passed away. Legal
representatives of Appellant No. 2 are already brought on record and are
represented by Advocate Pujari. However, it appears that legal
representatives of Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have engaged another
advocate. Only on account of this conundrum, prayer is sought for
transposition of Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 as Respondents. Now, all the

                                 Page No.1 of 2
                                29 August 2026
                          Renuka                                              9-IA-6616-2026.docx


                          legal heirs of the Appellants are ad idem that Mr. Pujari can represent
                          them. Accordingly, legal representatives of deceased Appellant Nos. 1
                          and 3 are permitted to be brought on record as Appellants with a caveat
                          that Mr. Pujari would represent all the Appellants in the Appeal.
                          Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith.


                          2)          Interim Application is disposed of.


                                                                           [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
                                                          Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                      29 August 2026
Date: 31/08/2026 17:01:11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…