ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. Application for amendment in substitution application is allowed.

3. The short question that arose for decision in this appeal is whether the High Court has correctly decided by the impugned judgment in S.A. No. 115 of 1968 that the appeal preferred by the appellant-Municipal Council, Mandsaur stood abated in view of the fact that legal representatives of one of the co-owners were not brought on record when the appeal was pending before the lower appellate court.

4. It may be stated here that initially three plaintiffs being brothers claiming to be the owners of the joint hindu family property, filed a suit against Municipal Council, Mandsaur for a permanent injunction by asserting their title to the property. Such suit was decreed by the trial court and the Municipality thereafter preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. During the pendency of such appeal, one of the three brothers had died. The Municipality did not bring the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased brother on record despite knowledge of such death but made an application that the name of the deceased brother should be deleted from the array of parties. The question thereaf