1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for damages, imputing medical negligence against third respondent, a doctor, who is stated to be no more, in conducting of laproscopic sterilisation surgery to her, with the State and the Director of Health Services as co-defendants, after trial, was dismissed by learned Sub Judge, Pala. In the appeal challenging that decree, notice ordered to the third respondent was returned with the endorsement 'no such person'. Appellant thereupon filed a petition, IA.No.524 of 2013 for deleting third respondent from the party array stating that on enquiry she found that the third respondent retired from service and later he had passed away. His legal heirs could not be traced out and, therefore, that respondent be deleted, was the request of appellant. That application was allowed by order dated 11.3.2013. The question that arises for consideration now is whether the appellant could still prosecute the appeal and sustain her claim for damages against the State and the second respondent. Those respondents, at best, have only vicarious liability over the acts done by third respondent, doctor, in the alleged negligence imputed over the surgery con