The main legal point established in the judgment is that the death of one or other of the legal representatives of the deceased parties would not result in abatement if the surviving representatives on record could collectively represent the interest of the deceased party.

All the misc. cases arose out of Second Appeal No. 9 of 1982 having its chequered history. The original suit 12 of 1976 was filed by 14 plaintiffs, the successor in interest of one Thokchom Himaloi Singh (shortly Himalai) against sole defendant Mutum Leiren Singh on 11.3.1976. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court sole defendant died and his legal representatives 10 in number had been substituted vide order dated 20.11.1978.

2. Suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession by evicting the defendant from immovable property. The suit was decreed on 1.4.1981. The legal representative of sole defendant preferred first appeal in Civil Appeal No. 8/81 and the District Judge allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 31.5.1982, against which the second appeal has been preferred by the 12 plaintiffs making 2 plaintiffs as proforma respondents on 20.9.1982.

3. During the pendency of this second appeal the appellant No. 7 died on 6.2.94 for which a petition under Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. has been filed by his legal representatives in Civil Misc. 81 of 1996 along with a condonation petition in Misc. 80/96 on 26.11.1996.

(a) Respondent No. 1 died on 19.2.1996 for which the appellants filed petition seeking substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. in Civil Misc. 79/96 on 26.11.1996 along with condonation petition in Civil Misc. 78/96. b) The proforma respondent No. 12 died on 27.11.96 and his legal heirs filed peti­tion seeking substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. on 21.11.2000 in-Civil Misc. 64/2000 along with condonation petition in Civil Misc, 62/2000.

4. The appellants also filed a petition in Civil Misc. 63/2000 on 21.12.2000 informing the death of appellant No. 10 (died on 8.10.99) with further intimation that the said appellant No. 10 died unmarried issue less.

5. The respondent No. 2 filed a petition on 29.8.1999 in Civil Misc. 47(A)/99 seeking for recording the abatement of the appeal.

6. Since all the civil misc. petitions pertain to sole question to decide as to whether the second appeal stood abated due to the death of appellant No. 7 (died on 6.2.94) due to death of respondent No. l(died on 19.2.1996), due to death of proforma respondent No. 12 (died on 27.11.96) and due to death of appellant No. 10 (died on 8.10.99) and also whether the legal representatives of those dead appellant/ respondent could be allowed to be added as party as prayed for and, as such, for convenience sake all these petitions are taken together, as regard by the parties, for analogous hearing and disposal by the common order.

7. Under aforementioned back drops, the provisions and applicability of related rules under Order 22 C.P.C. are to be examined/appreciated. A combined reading of Rule 1, 2,3 and 4 of Order 22 C.P.C. visualise that in the event of death of plaintiff or defendant (hereinafter referred to as "party") in any suit appeal or revision (hereinafter referred as "proceeding"), the proceeding would stand abated unless the right to produce/defence survives and the legal representative(s) is/are substituted within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act.

8. But a question arises before the Court as to whether death of one or other of the numerous already substituted legal representatives (LRs) would result in abatement of the proceeding in the event of non-substitution of the heirs of those dead LRs to the proceeding or the proceeding would continue at the instance of the surviving LR(s) of the original party already on record and also as to whether the heirs of those dead LR(s) could be permitted to be either substituted or be added as a party simpliciter to the proceeding.

9. In the present case the sole defendant died during the pendency of the trial and his legal heirs 10 in numbers were lawfully substituted. Now, during the pendency of the appeal one LR viz. respondent No. 1 died having left the remaining 9 LRs of the original defendant alive. In this situation, whether the 9 L