1. While issuing notices to the respondents herein, on 15.12.2014, I had recorded the factual matrix and the contentions of the petitioner in paragraph Nos.1 to 4, which are as follows:-

"1. RCS No.114/96 is pending before the Trial Court, wherein the plaintiff has preferred to implead the partnership firm as defendant No.1 and has impleaded the partners of the said partnership firm as defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. The deceased father of the petitioner is also said to be one of the partners of the defendant No.1 partnership firm and was later on added as the 6th defendant by order dated 21.11.1990 below Exh.61.

3. The said 6th defendant Rajendra Sagarmal has passed away on 19.1.2014. Application at Exh.131 was moved by the petitioner for being added as a defendant in his capacity as a legal representative of the deceased Rajendra Sagarmal. Considering the objections of the defendants and after hearing the petitioner, the said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.10.2014 primarily on the ground that, the dispute involves a partnership firm and in such circumstances, order 30 rule 4 of the CPC does not permit a legal heir to be added as a defendant only because, he is the son of the deceased partner.

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that the result of RCS No. 114/96 is likely to impact the rights of the petitioner, since he contends specifically that, the property said to be in the possession of the partnership firm is now in the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel hastens to add that the property in his possession though is a subject matter of the said suit, was never in the possession of the partnership firm. Yet, if the suit is allowed, the petitioner is likely to be evicted from the same."

2. The petitioner, therefore, submits that when the sixth respondent, father of the petitioner and defendant No.6 in RCS No. 114 of 1986 had passed away, the petitioner gets a right under Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code ("CPC") to apply for being impleaded in place of his deceased father. Shri Gholap further submits that the rigors of Order XXX Rule 4 of the CPC would, therefore, not be attracted and the petitioner's case would then fall under Order XXX Rule 4(2)(a) of the CPC.

3. Shri Gholap further points out that the prayers made in the suit are against all the defendants and as such, the petitioner would lose a valuable right of defending himself, in view of being the legal representative of deceased respondent No.6.

4. Shri Gholap further submits that earlier, in the same suit, respondent No.2 Sagarmal Rupchand had passed away, who was the second defendant. An application was made below Exhibit 82 by defendant No.5 that the suit would abate as against defendant No.2. By order dated 21.11.1990, the trial Court concluded that the suit does not abate. Defendant No.5 – Madan Sagarmal, therefore, filed Civil Revision Application No.446 of 1991, which was rejected by this Court by judgment dated 20.4.1999 (Coram: B.B.Vagyani, J.). He, therefore, submits that the issue raised in this petition was not never considered under Order XXX Rule 4(2)(a) of the CPC.

5. Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. He submits that an identical situation had earlier occurred in the very same RCS No.114 of 1986, wherein, defendant No.2 - Sagarmal Rupchand had passed away. Application Exhibit 82 was filed by Madan Sagarmal son of the deceased Sagarmal Rupchand and who was the fifth defendant in the proceedings, seeking an order that the suit would, therefore, be abated against defendant No.2 as the plaintiff had not brought legal heirs of Sagarmal Rupchand on record. Said application was rejected.

6. Civil Revision Application No.446 of 1991 was, therefore, filed by the said fifth defendant before this Court. By judgment dated 20.4.1999, the Civil Revision Application was rejected.

7. Shri Kulkarni, therefore, submits that an identical situation has now arisen since the sixth defendant Ra