Judgment : Oral Judgment: [A.H. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard. Admit. Learned Adv. Mr. R.L. Khapre for respondents waives service. 2. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. 3. Facts, which need to be adverted to, are as follows:- [a] 25-6-98 - Regular Civil Suit No. 681 of 1998 filed by the Firm – Parivar Real Estate, describing it as filed through partner – Smt. Pratibha Krishnarao Pitale. [b] 20-10-03 - Present appellant filed application [Exh.69] for getting impleaded as co-plaintiff. [c] 10-6-05 - Application [Exh.69] was allowed. [d] - Parties contend that amendment was not carried out by the original partner on record. [e] 30-5-06 - Pratibha Krishnarao Pitale, one amongst the partners, died. [f] 15-11-06 - Late Pratibha's two legal heirs – Dattatraya and Dhanshree, present respondent nos. 1 and 2, got themselves arrayed as legal heirs of deceased partner, and have continued with the suit. [g] 8-4-08 - Present appellant filed application [Exh.78] seeking deletion of present respondents, who had, in the meantime, got into the description of plaintiff as heirs of deceased partner – Pratibha. [h] 14-11-08 - Application was allowed by the learned Trial Court. [i] 28-11-08 - Respondents filed Writ Petition against order passed below Exh.78. [j] 10-12-08 - Writ Petition has been allowed by this Court by Judgment and Order, and the order passed below Exh.78 is set aside. 4. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th December, 2008. 5. In the Letters Patent Appeal, point, which is fervently argued, can be condensed and narrated as below:- “By virtue of Rule 4 of Order-XXX of Civil Procedure Code, a suit by partnership can be proceeded without impleadment of legal representatives of deceased partner, or a firm where various persons are eligible to individually sue for the rest and, therefore, when the appellant was ordered to be arrayed as plaintiff, bringing on record legal heirs of other partners was and is totally unnecessary.” 6. According to learned Adv. Mr. R.V. Gaikwad, based on the said proposition, impleadment of present respondents as heirs of Pratibha should not have been liable to be done, since it was possible to proceed with the suit, rather such addition / impleadment is illegal and contrary to Rule 4 of Order-XXX of Civil Procedure Code. 7. Learned Adv. Mr. According to learned Adv. Mr. R.V. Gaikwad, based on the said proposition, impleadment of present respondents as heirs of Pratibha should not have been liable to be done, since it was possible to proceed with the suit, rather such addition / impleadment is illegal and contrary to Rule 4 of Order-XXX of Civil Procedure Code. 7. Learned Adv. Mr. Gaikwad very strongly relied upon reported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anokhe Lal Vs. Radhamohan Bansal & ors. [ AIR 1997 SC 257 ]. This Court has perused the facts and law as discussed in this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. It shall suffice to refer to the gist of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is narrated as follows:- [a] It was a case of a suit for eviction by landlord against the tenant-partnership firm. [b] Legal heirs of one of the deceased partners moved application under Order I, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and lost in the Trial Court as well as in the Revision Application before District Court. [c] The heirs took a second round of litigation titling the claim under Rule 4 of Order XXX, Civil Procedure Code, which was rejected by the Trial Court and allowed by Single Judge of High Court. [d] In a challenge to said impleadment, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the trial ought not be relegated by impleadment since Rule 4 of Order-XXX of Civil Procedure Code provides that suit can be continued without impleadment of heir of any party when suit could have been instituted or continued in absence of such deceased person. 9. The precedent relied upon is far from relevance. In present case, contesting parties are on one side i.e., all are plaintiffs. There is no question of proceedings being protracted, save and except on appellant's efforts. 10. Purport and object of Rule 4 of Order XXX is to save protraction of litigation when a Firm is a party to suit, and suit can be legitimately continued if the legal heirs of deceased partners are not brought before the Court. This provision is an enabling provision and made to avoid protracting the suit or proceedings. Object of the rule is to dispense with impleadment, so that these steps do not come in the way of expeditious disposal. This provision is an enabling provision and made to avoid protracting the suit or proceedings. Object of the rule is to dispense with impleadment, so that these steps do not come in the way of expeditious disposal. This provision cannot be used to deny rightful impleadment, when such impleadment does not defeat the purpose of the early disposal of suit or in itself can avoid further litigation. 11. In this view of the matter, appeal has no merit, and is rejected. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs.