( 1 ) BEFORE adverting to the facts of the matters at hand, it would be proper to refer to few observations made by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and Ors. v. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi workers and Allied Beedi Factories Workers Association, akbar Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore, 2004 (103) FLR 387, since the same are material in view of the facts of the present case. "the judicial review power vested in this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution of India should be exercised in such a way as to advance the objectives of law and not to thwart those objective. Technicalities cannot be permitted to hijack the divine rhythm of justice. The parties should win or lose on substantive grounds and not on technical tortures. The relief to be granted by the High Court must be such as could be considered permissible in law and worked out by application of legally recognized principles. The decision must have legitimacy of legal reasoning and should not incur the criticism of lacking the objectivity of purpose and rational and legal justification. "

( 2 ) HEARD Ms. Sushma S. Shah for Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the applicants original appellants and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent- bank.

( 3 ) THE original appellant-Jagdishchandra Maganlal Trivedi was the Middle management Gr. II Officer of the respondent-Bank. He filed Special Civil application No. 4121 of 1984 challenging the order passed by the appellate authority of the respondent-Bank dated May 7, 1983 [annexure-J] and the order dated November 30, 1983 [annexure-L] which was dismissed by this Court (Coram : S. K. Keshote, J.) on 8th July, 1997. Said order of dismissal of the petition was challenged by said Jagdishchandra Maganlal Trivedi before the division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1323 of 1997. Said Letters Patent Appeal was decided by this Court (Coram : Honble Chief justice and H. K. Rathod, J.) on April 15, 2004 wherein order dated May 7, 1983 and November 30, 1983 passed by the respondent-Bank were set aside. This Court also set aside the order dated July 8, 1997 passed in Special Civil application No. 4121 of 1984 and the said petition, was thus, allowed by the division Bench of this Court.

( 4 ) WHILE this Court was considering the said Letters Patent Appeal, during the course of arguments on appeal, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza had made a mention that the appellant aged about 75 year old is suffering from cancer and he is in the last stage of cancer and that statement made by Mr. Oza was taken into account by this Court while deciding the said Letters Patent appeal. Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal was pronounced by this Court in open Court on April 15, 2004.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, on April 22, 2004, Misc. Civil Application No. 662 of 2004 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Jagdishchandra M. Trivedi with an affidavit of the widow Jayshreeben Jagdishchandra Trivedi. Along with the said application, death certificate of the deceased Jagdishchandrabhai was also produced wherein it is recorded that Jagdishchandra M. Trivedi has died on december 9, 2002 at Gandhigam. The death of the appellant was recorded on 24-12-2002. In the said application, the applicants have prayed for bringing the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased appellant on the record of the matter. The applicants have also prayed for condoning delay in filing the application and to pass appropriate orders. Respondent-Bank has filed reply against the said application on 22nd June, 2004 and has objected the prayer made by the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased appellant. On the same day, the respondent-Bank has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1088 of 2004 wherein the Bank has prayed for declaring that the order passed by this Court in L. P. A. No. 1323 of 1997 on 15th April, 2004 does not remain in effect and operation. Against that application, the widow of the deceased