JUDGMENT

Daniels, J. - In this case, a preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of the appeal on tae ground that it has abated. The facts are that two of the respondents, Bhagwat Pande and Chhotkan Pande, are deed and that no steps have been taken to bring their legal representatives on the record. As they admittedly died prior to 1st June last there is no doubt that the appeal has abated against them. The respondent contends, however, that under the circumstances of She case the appeal has abated against all the respondents. Chhotakan Pande was plaintiff No. 13 in the original array of parties and was No. 19 in the 1st of respondents in this Court. Bhagwat, son of Harihar Pande, is No. 7 in the list of plaintiffs-respondents attached to the memorandum of appeal. As a matter of fact, no such name appears either in the plaint or in the memorandum of appeal to the lower Appellate Court and a comparison of the names in the plaint with those in the memorandum of appeal to this Court goes to show that this name has been written by mistake for that of Hanwant Pande, son of Sheoamber Pande. The name of the latter does not appear anywhere in the array of parties to the appeal.

2. The de