JUDGMENT : 1. In Civil Suit No. 2 of 1950-51 Nawab Akhtar and Gulamdastgir sued Seth Pannalal and others for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in the Court of the District Judge, Raisen. During the trial of the suit the plaintiffs applied for appointment of a Receiver of the property of the partnership. The learned District Judge, on 8-5-50 rejected the application. The plaintiffs Dastgir and Nawab Akhtar filed this appeal against that order. 2. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant No. 1 Gulam Dastgir, on 26-9-50, informed the Court that the appellant No. 2 Nawab Akhtar had died a month before. The appeal was adjourned for filing an application for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased. On 1-11-50 Gulam Dastgir, appellant No. 1 filed an application for bringing on record the legal representatives, but it being improper was rejected on 3-11-50. On 7-11-50, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No. 2 filed an application for being brought on record, but it was only on 6-12-50 that they stated the date of the death of Nawab Akhtar to be 28-6-50. On 30-12-50, the respondents contended that the application was barred by time and that the whole appeal abated. The applicants contended that as some of them were minors, the application was within time and that at any rate the whole appeal could not abate. 3. Issues were framed on these contentions and after arguments were heard, they are found as below : REASONS FOR THE FINDINGS. 4. 'Issues Nos. 1 and 2 :' Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the law as applicable to the suits as also the appeals on the death, marriage and insolvency of parties. Rule 11 of the said Order of the Code makes it clear that the rules in so far as are applicable to suits are applicable to appeals also. On the death of a party to a suit or an appeal an application for bringing on record the legal representatives hag to be filed within 90 days of the death of the said party, under Art. 176 of the Limitation Act. In the appeal on hand, it is now obvious that the appellant No. 2 Nawab Akhtar died on 28-6-50 and this date is not challenged by the respondents. In the appeal on hand, it is now obvious that the appellant No. 2 Nawab Akhtar died on 28-6-50 and this date is not challenged by the respondents. The very first application, which was filed for bringing on record the legal representatives, was filed on 1-11-50 i.e., long after the period of limitation had expired. The second application by the applicants-legal-representatives of the deceased appellant was filed on 7-11-50 which was equally so barred. The existence of minors amongst legal representatives does not make any difference in so far as the substitution of the legal representatives is concerned. In the circumstances, it is found that the application is barred by time and that the period of limitation is not saved by the existence of minors among the legal representatives. 5. 'Issue No. 3' : The question, however, is what the effect, of the failure of such application being filed within time, is the main question for decision being whether the whole appeal abates and if not what portion. Under rule 4 of the Order XLI of the Code: "where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree and thereupon the appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants as the case may be." If the case is of such a nature that it cannot be disposed of in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased, the whole appeal will abate, but if the lower Court's decree proceeds on a ground common to the deceased as well as to the survivor then the latter can, under this rule, appeal from the whole decree and the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased is no bar to the disposal of the appeal. In 'MASHAHUR v. SUBHAN DIN', AIR 1941 Pesh 36, it is held that "where a suit against several defendants for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled; to water their lands from a particular stream at a specified point and for a perpetual injunction that the defendants should remove their dam in order to enable the plaintiffs to do so is decreed, the decision jointly affects all the defendants and if in appeal by them one of them dies and his legal representative is not brought on record within time, the appeal does not abate against all the appellants." This decision follows a decision of the Allahabad High Court in 'JAMNA BHAGAT v. AUDH BEHARIMAL', AIR 1933 All 733 and a decision of the Calcutta High Court in 'SATULAL v. ASIRADDI', AIR 1934 Cal 703 and of the Madras High Court in 'CHENCHURAMAYYA v. VENKATASUBBAYYA CHETTY'. AIR 1933 Mad 655 . I am in respectful agreement with the observations and the decisions in the above cases and find that the appeal does not abate as a whole and can be heard even if there is only one appellant on record. 6. The above decisions also lay down that if the appeal succeeds, the success enures for the benefit of all including the deceased appellant No. 2 or his legal representatives even if they are not on record. My finding, therefore, is that the appeal does not abate. 7. Findings accordingly. Order accordingly.