ORDER:- This revision petition raises an interesting point. It is, whether it is permissible to substitute the names of the legal representatives of a person who was already dead on the institution of the suit but was impleaded as a defendant. Two other minor questions have also been raised to which I will advert later.

2. Respondents possess a property which is surrounded on all sides by the properties of the petitioners/defendants and respondents want a right of way to reach the enclave. It is not disputed that plaintiff/respondents had impleaded one Antonio Mesquita as defendant No. 2 in the suit. Antonio Misquita was not alive when the suit was filed. Having learnt this during the pendency of the suit respondents applied for substitution of his heirs and this application was allowed. Accordingly petitioners 2 to 6 were impleaded as defendants. A plea was raised by the defendants that the suit against a dead person was a nullity ab initio and should be dismissed in limine. This contention was rejected by the lower Court on the ground that this issue had already been decided by an earlier order dated 7-9-1971 and further that the Court had jurisdiction to substitute the l