have remained present before the MRT but could not advance their arguments. In response to the affidavit in reply, the rejoinder affidavit states that the petitioners did not have documents and hence, had prayed for the appointment of a new Advocate. It is also indicated that they were unaware of the case and prayers before the MRT. It is sought to be contended that since the amendment was not carried out in the revision application, there was no question of filing any vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners. It is further contended that the uncle of the petitioners, i.e. the brother of the deceased Baban, had appeared before the MRT for impleading himself as a party, however, the said application was rejected. Thus, it is sought to be contended that the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that their uncle would take care of the case; hence, they did not appear before the MRT and did not engage their Advocate. For the first time, by way of an affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioners claim to have been residing in Thane. Thus, the petitioners have taken contrary stands in the main petition and the affidavit-in-rejoinder.
