( 1 ) EVIDENCE having been recorded in respect of the application (C. M. 1536 of 1971) the parties counsel have been heard at length. The application was preferred under Order 22, rules 3 and 4 read with rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, under the date 2nd of September, 1971. It was preferred in the course of Regular Second Appeal No. 178-D of 1966. A reference to the memorandum of appeal discloses that the address of the single respondent given therein was "raghunath Gupta s/o Mahi Ram, resident of 26, Beadanpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi " The appeal was admitted in the year 1966. Raghunath Sahai respondent died four years thereafter.

( 2 ) NO counsel is expected to be every time aware of the death of any of the parties to the litigation in his charge A counsel may be unaware of the death of his own client. It is the choice of legal representatives of a client to inform his counsel about the demise. It is rightly stated in the application by Mr. Bishamber Dayal that he learnt about the death of the respondent from the respondent s counsel in July, 1971. There is nothing to controvert that assertion. The statement of Shri Ram Nath Chitkara, Occupation Tahsildar, Delhi Deve