S. B. Sinha, J.

1. This application is directed against an order dated 10/4/1989 passed by Sri S. N. Gupta, Additional Judicial Commissioner, 1st Court, Ranchi, in Title Appeal No.2 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the said learned court held that the plaintiffs suit has abated.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit as against-the petitioner (Chunni Singh), Munni Singh, Bhukhan Singh, Sugriv Singh Sarwan Singh, vijay Singh and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. In the aforementioned suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a joint written statement. The trial court decreed the suit. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was registered as title Appeal No.2/82 along with his brother Munni Singh. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 of the aforementioned suits were arrayed us pro forma respondents in the memorandum of appeal.

4. The appellant No.2 and the respondent No.4 of the aforementioned appeal died on 28-7-1986 and 1-1-1988 respectively. On 11-7-1988 and 18-8-1988, the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 filed two separate applications praying therein that the entire appeal be dismissed as the heirs and legal representative of the aforementioned appellant No.2 (Munni Singh)and respondent No.4 (Bhukhan Singh) have not been substituted. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the said applications contending inter alia therein that the interest of appellant No.2 was sufficiently represented by the petitioner.

5. It was further contended that as the defendant-appellant No.2 and respondent No.4 filed a joint written statement, the question of abatement of the appeal did not arise. On 1-8-1988, the petitioner had also filed an application for substituting the heirs of the deceased-appellant no.2 and deceased-respondent No.4 wherein it was stated the petitioner was an old man of 90 years and had all along been ill and had no knowledge of procedural requirements of law.

6. It was further stated that the appellant had no knowledge about the death of Bhukhan Singh and came to know of the same on 12-7-1982. Before the learned court of appeal below, both the parties adduced evidence. By reasons of the impugned order, the learned court of appeal below held that the petitioner had knowledge about the date of death of appellant No.2 and respondent No.4.

7. Learned court of appeal below on the basis of the aforementioned finding came to the conclusion that as the suit had been decreed jointly against the deceased-appellant No.2 and deceased respondent No.4, the appeal has abated.

8. Mr. P. K- Prasad learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two cntentions in support ef this application learned counsel firstly submitted that as an appeal was maintainable even without impleading the other defendants as a party-respondent, the question of abatement of the entire appeal did not arise. Learned counsel has relied upon Sudama Prasad Keshri V/s. Tapeshwar sao reported in 1989 PLJR 819 and in Mt. Parwati Kuer V/s. Manna Lal khetan reported in AIR 1956 Patna 414.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event in a case of this nature, where the petitioner has contended that he was not aware of the intricacies of the law and was aged about 90 years, the learned court of appeal below should have considered this fact as also the fact that the petitioner was a rustic villager and in that view of the matter, he ought to have set aside the abatement.

10. Mr. P. N. Sahu learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appeal has abated as a whole inasmuch as the interest of the parties were joint. Learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri. Chand and others V/s. M/s. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand reported in AIR 1966 SC 1427 and in Netar and others V/s. Jagta reported in AIR 1985 HP 30.

11. It is now well known by reason of various decisions of the s