ORDER : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present application has been filed for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased Chhaganlal Parshottamdas Tavdiwala, who was the respondent No. 2 in the appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The application has also been filed for bringing on record the legal heirs of Chimanlal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala, who had expired in the year 2004 and the heirs of Natwarlal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala, who had expired in the year 2015. 2. After having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, it appears that the original respondent No. 2 Chhaganlal Parshottamdas Tavdiwala had expired pending the appeal before the lower appellate Court and his legal heirs and representatives were not brought on record by the appellants (who are respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the present Second Appeal) before the lower appellate Court. It also appears that the said Chhaganlal Parshottamdas Tavdiwala had four sons namely; Chimanlal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala, Natwarlal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala, Jayantilal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala, and Gamanlal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala. Out of the said four sons, Chimanlal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala had already expired in the year 2004 i.e prior to filing of the appeal before the lower appellate Court and Natwarlal had expired in the year 2015. 3. It appears that these sons were not sought to be brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased Chhaganlal Parshottam Tavdiwala, who was the respondent No. 2 in the appeal before the lower appellate Court, however, the present respondent No. 2 Jayantilal Chhaganlal Tavdiwala, who was the appellant No. 2 in the said appeal had made an application Exh. 26 for showing him as the only legal heir of the said Chhaganlal Parshottamdas Tavdiwala before the lower appellate Court, on the basis of a “will” allegedly executed by the said Chhaganlal Parshottamdas Tavdiwala. The said application Exh. 26 was rejected by the lower appellate Court vide the order dated 2.2.2011 for the reasons stated therein. The said order remained unchallenged. 4. The said application Exh. 26 was rejected by the lower appellate Court vide the order dated 2.2.2011 for the reasons stated therein. The said order remained unchallenged. 4. Be that as it may, without going into the issue as to whether the respondent No. 2 herein was the only legal heir of the deceased Chhaganlal Parshottamdas Tavdiwala or not by virtue of the said alleged “will”, or the issue as to whether the said appeal before the appellate Court had abated qua the said respondent No. 2 Chhaganlal or not, which will be decided at the time of hearing of the Second Appeal, suffice is to say that the legal heirs of the deceased Chhaganlal Tavdiwala were not brought on record by the appellants of the said appeal before the lower appellate Court, and hence, the present application for bringing the legal heirs of the said Chhaganlal or of his heirs on the record of Second Appeal cannot be granted. 5. In that view of the matter the present application is rejected.