JUDGMENT

1. The fasts are as follows:---Bildeo Singh and Lakhpati executel a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of Bhurai. Ram Karan Singh and others instituted a suit to set aside the mortgage On the 8th September 1914 a compromise was executed between the plaintiff and the defend-ants to the effect that if the plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,200 to Bhurai on or about the 15th Jane 1916, the mortgage would stand redeemed and that if they did not pay that amount by that date, the mortgage property should be put to sale and the amount due to Bhurai should be recovered therefrom, A portion of the mortgage money was paid before the 10th July 1916, and the parties agreed to an extension of time by which the remainder should be paid within a year later. Bhurai died, it is not clear when, but at any rate, before the end of 1916. Now, Moti Lal v. Ram Narain, 40 Ind. Cas, 1006 : 39 A, 55(sic) : 15 A. L. J. 540. is authority for the view that a preliminary decree doss not put an end to a suit which remains pending till the final decree and that, therefore, when a defendant dies after a preliminary decree has been passed, the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4 have application. It is thus dear that in so far as Bhurai win concerned as no application was made under Sub-Rule, 1, Order, XXII, Rule 4 for the substitution of his legal representatives within the time of limitation following his death, the suit abated against him.

2. On the 14th June 1919 the sons of Bhurai applied that a final decree should be prepared in the suit. Their application has been dismissed by the Munsif whore order has been upheld by the District Judge. Their application mast clearly be dismissed. We need not go into the points taken by the District Judge. It is only necessary to note one point which was fatal to the application at the beginning. The suit has abated against Bhurai. The applicants have no locus stanai. They profess to represent a man against whom the suit abated soma, years ago. They may have other remedies. We express no opinion upon that point but they certainly have no remedy in this manner as they are not parties to the proceeding. with accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.