Legal representation in appeals must be determined through proper inquiry and evidence, not conjecture, as mandated by procedural law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of common order passed by learned District Judge, Pune on 4th January 2024, whereby the Application preferred by the Petitioner (Exhibit “49”) and another Application preferred by Mr. Suresh Pandurang Ghodke (Exhibit “77”) to implead them as the parties to RCA No. 324 of 2012 in the capacity of legal representatives of Marybai Moses Peter, the deceased Respondent, came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition can be summarized as under:

4. The Respondents-Plaintiffs had instituted a Suit for specific performance of a contract for sale executed by Marybai Peter, being Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984. The said Suit was partly decreed by Judgment and Order dated 20th September 1990. The Defendant carried the matter in Appeal before this Court in First Appeal No. 171 of 1992. In the said Appeal, the Respondent filed cross-objection. First Appeal No. 171 of 1992 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The cross-objection preferred by the Respondent-Plaintiff came to be independently numbered as First Appeal No. 131 of 1995. In view of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, in the year 2012 the said First Appeal No. 131 of 1995 came to be transferred to the District Court, Pune, and was registered as RCA No. 324 of 2012.

5. During the pendency of the Appeal, the Petitioner preferred Application (Exhibit “49”) asserting inter alia that Marybai Peter, the Defendant/Respondent therein, passed away on 6th February 1995. The Petitioner/Applicant is the daughter of late Amritham Aiyer, who was the Vice-President of Spicer College, Aundh, Pune. Deceased Marybai Peter was the cousin of Amritham Aiyer, the father of the Applicant. Marybai Peter was a spinster. Marybai had not left behind her parents, Sister or Brother. The Petitioner is the sole surviving heir of late Marybai Peter. Therefore, the Petitioner be permitted to implead herself as the legal representative of late Marybai Peter.

6. Dr. Suresh Pandurang Ghodke also preferred an Application (Exhibit “77) to implead him as the legal representative of Marybai Peter in the capacity of the legatee under the purported Will dated 12th November 1992 executed by Marybai, whereunder the suit property also came to be bequeathed to him.

7. The Appellants resisted both the Applications. It was disputed that Marybai Peter passed away on 6th February 1995. A reference was made to an earlier order passed by the Court on an Application of one Pannalal Shah (Exhibit “32”), whereby the said Application came to be rejected observing inter alia that the said Pannalal Shah has failed to establish that Marybai Peter passed away on 29th March 1993. The claim of both the Petitioner Prema Aiyer, and Dr. Suresh Ghodke to succeed to the estate of Marybai Peter, on intestacy and testamentary disposition, respectively, was contested by the Appellants-Respondents herein.

8. Prema Aiyer also controverted the claim of Dr. Suresh Ghodke that late Marybai Peter had executed a Will in his favour

9. The learned District Judge was of the view that though it was established that Marybai Peter died on 6th February 1995, yet, both the Petitioner and Dr. Suresh Ghodke failed to substantiate their claim that they are the legal representative of late Marybai Peter. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

10. I have heard Mr. Mandar Limaye, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Jaydeep Deo, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, at some length. The learned Counsel took the Court through the material and documents on record.

11. Mr. Limaye, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, strenuously submitted that there was a substantial procedural defect in the determination of th