Judgement Petition by the appellants in an appeal (No. 66 of 1927) by special leave from a decree of the High Court dated February 22, 1916. The petition stated as follows That the suit had been instituted by the appellants in 1904 for a declaration that the defendants had no proprietary right in certain land in the village of Behat. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, but his decree was reversed upon appeal to the High Court. There were upon the record 186 respondents in all. Since July 30, 1923, when special leave to appeal had been granted, several of the respondents had died, and owing to the necessary substitution and revivor proceedings the record had not been received until May 16, 1927. During the pendency of the appeal fourteen of the respondents had died; the High Court had certified the proper persons to be sub stituted and Orders of revivor had been made as against the substituted respondents. Cases had been lodged on August 1, 1929, but by reason of the deaths which had occurred and the revivor proceedings necessary under the rules it had been impossible to bring the appeal on for hearing. It was submitted that further substitution or revivor proceedings were not necessary, as (a) the interests of the original respondents and of the substituted respondents were identical; (b) the Law. Rep. 57 Ind. App. 94 ( 1929- 1930) Zahid Husain V. Mohammad Ismail 244 respondents had all been represented by the same pleader and solicitors ; (c) that in the case of one of the deceased respondents, the guardian of an infant, the person to be substituted not being represented in England, copies of the Order of revivor would have to be served on him in India, and under r. 43 (b) of the Judicial Committee rules the appeal could not be set down against him until the expiration of three months from the date of the service. It was apprehended that further respondents would die in the interval, thus causing further delay. The petitioners prayed that the appeal might be set down for hearing as against the surviving respondents with liberty, if the appeal succeeded to proceed against the other respondents or their representatives, or such order as should seem just. 1929. Dec. 16. Wallach for the petitioners stated the facts and referred to the Judicial Committee Rules, 1925, rr. The petitioners prayed that the appeal might be set down for hearing as against the surviving respondents with liberty, if the appeal succeeded to proceed against the other respondents or their representatives, or such order as should seem just. 1929. Dec. 16. Wallach for the petitioners stated the facts and referred to the Judicial Committee Rules, 1925, rr. 43 (6), 52, and 83, which provide that the Judicial Committee may, for sufficient cause shown, excuse the parties from compliance with any of the requirements of the rules. The solicitors for the opposing respondents signified in writing their consent to the prayer of the petition. The Judicial Committee ordered and directed as follows (1.) that the appeal be this day set down for hearing as against such of the respondents as have appeared or have been served with notice of any Order in Council bringing them upon the record; and (2.) that all questions how any other respondents are to be proceeded against do stand for determination if necessary at the hearing of the appeal.