Bhandari, J.—This is a civil second appeal on behalf of Abdul Samad, Chand Mohammad and Mst. Asmat Nuri in a suit for possession of a room. Abdul Karim, father of appellants and the appellants Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for possession of a room in the court of the Munsif, Bundi, on the 6th of May, 1949. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the disputed room and one Khudabux was in possession of it on their behalf and the defendants had illegally dispossessed him some two months before the filing of the suit. They, therefore, claimed possession of it. During the pendency of the suit Abdul Karim died on the 1st February, 1951. On the 18th April, 1951, the two appellants, Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad, who were already plaintiffs on record, applied that they were the legal representatives of their father Abdul Karim and that their names be substituted in place of the name of their father. On notice to the defendant respondents, they replied that Abdul Karim had left other heirs also, namely another son Abdul Rahman, one daughter Mst. Asmat Nuri and the widow Mst. Kallu. The appellants Chand Mohammad and Abdul Samad, thereupon, made an application on the 30th July, 1951, that their mother Mst. Kallu had died sometime in October, 1950 before the death of Abdul Karim and that Abdul Rehman and Mst. Asmat Nuri be made the legal representatives of Abdul Karim. On the same date, two other applications were made, one on behalf of Abdul Rehman and another on behalf of Mst. Asmat Nuri with the prayer that they might be made the legal representatives of Abdul Karim along with Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad. The learned Munsif held that the application dated the 18th April, 1951, was not made by all the legal representatives of Abdul Karim and that the application dated the 30th July, 1951, was made after the time prescribed under Art. 176 of the Limitation Act, as such the suit abated as a whole. The appellants went in appeal to the court of the Civil Judge, Bundi making Abdul Rehman as one of the respondents. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal on the 3rd December, 195l, agreeing with the learned Munsif. The appellants went in appeal to the court of the Civil Judge, Bundi making Abdul Rehman as one of the respondents. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal on the 3rd December, 195l, agreeing with the learned Munsif. The learned Civil Judge further held that Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad had no interest in the room in dispute during the lifetime of Abdul Karim and they could not prosecute the suit in their own right. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the defendants. 2. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that an application had been made by two of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to be made party within the prescribed time and as such the suit could not be dismissed as it did not abate under Order 22 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff could be made party even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 176. It is further urged that the suit being a suit for possession against the trespassers, the appellants Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad who became tenants-in-common with Abdul Rehman and Mst. Asmat Nuri, after the death of Abdul Karim, could prosecute the suit instituted by Abdul Karim, who, it is conceded, was the sole owner of the room during his lifetime. 3. On behalf of the appellants reliance is placed on the words legal representatives occurring in Order 22 rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code which runs as follows :— "Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit." It is urged that the words legal representative do not mean all the legal representatives and that it is not necessary that an application for bringing all the legal representatives on record should be made. Reliance is placed on the case of Bhikaji Ramchandra vs. Purshotam (1). In that case one Bhikaji Ramchandra died during the pendency of appeal filed by him. Bhikaji bad left three sons, two adults and one minor. Reliance is placed on the case of Bhikaji Ramchandra vs. Purshotam (1). In that case one Bhikaji Ramchandra died during the pendency of appeal filed by him. Bhikaji bad left three sons, two adults and one minor. Notice was served on the two adult sons but they failed to apply within sixty days. The minor son applied within the time prescribed by law to be made a party. This application was rejected by the court hearing the appeal on the ground that in consequence of the omission on the part of the two adult brothers to apply, the appeal abated. On appeal to the High Court by the minor son, the following observations were made by Sargent, C.J.:— "It is true that the complete legal representation as a fact is vested in him and his two brothers, but section 366 only requires an application to be trade by a person claiming to be the legal representative, to prevent the order of abatement being made. The only question which arises, therefore is, bow the appeal is to proceed, on the supposition that neither of the other brothers, as we assume to be the case, is willing to have his name placed on the record ? Under these circumstances, the respondent is entitled to have them made defendants, so that they may be bound by the decree. The minor son can then proceed with the appeal alone." The facts of the above case clearly show that it had been brought to the notice of the court that the deceased Bhikaji Ramchandra had three sons who were the legal representatives. Under Order 22 rule 3 (1) if an application is made disclosing all the legal representatives of the deceased, the court may make an order that they may be made parties either as plaintiffs or as defendants. 4. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghamandilal vs. Amir Begum, (2) that the words "the legal representative" in section 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Order 22 rule 3) must, where there are more than one legal representative, be read in the plural. Ghamandils vs. case (2) was followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Haidar Husain vs. Abdul Ahad (3). Ghamandils vs. case (2) was followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Haidar Husain vs. Abdul Ahad (3). The same view was taken by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court in the case of Muhammad Hassan vs. Inayat Hussain (4), wherein it was observed as follows : "The expression legal representative means and includes one person as well as several persons according as they represent the whole interest of the deceased person." The same view is taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Fajar Banoo vs. Rahimbux (5). The Bombay High Court in the case of Ishwarlal Laxmichand Patel vs. Kuber Mohan Lawar (6) treated the decision in the case of Bhikaji Ramchandra vs. Purshotam (1), as good law. In that case the plaintiff brought a suit for an injunction against the defendant to secure certain easement rights and various other amenities for his house. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died, and the son of the deceased appellant made an application to be brought on record as legal representative. His application was granted but later on an objection was taken by the respondent in that case that the widow of the deceased appellant was also one of the heirs under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act and that as she was not brought on record, the appeal had abated. It was held that the appeal did not abate. This is one aspect of the controversy. It becomes deeper under Order 22 rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my humble opinion the true principles are contained in the following observations of Varadachariar J. in the case of Muthuraman Chettiar vs. Adaikappa Chetty (7) :— "Some decisions put a very strict construction upon the rules of O. 22 and go the length of holding that unless all the legal representatives are actually on record, there can be no representation at all and the wholedecree is void: see for instance 1933 Lah 356 (15) 30 All 117 (16 and 1927 Lah 94(17). The preponderance of authority is. however, in favour of the view that there will be no abatement if at least some representatives are on record : see for instance 1925 Pat 551 (18) and 1927 Lah 6 (19) : see also 1929 Mad 275(20). The preponderance of authority is. however, in favour of the view that there will be no abatement if at least some representatives are on record : see for instance 1925 Pat 551 (18) and 1927 Lah 6 (19) : see also 1929 Mad 275(20). Apart from the provisions of O. 22, the question whether in any suit, an estate can in the first instance be represented by some of the heirs entitled thereto in the absence of other heirs, has often come up for consideration and the preponderance of authority is in favour of the view that, in the absencs of fraud or collusion, the representation by some of the heirs will be sufficient representation: see 26 Mad 230(21) : 1927fMad 1061 (22): 1928 Mad 1199(23) and 1924 Bom 420(24). Much the same reasoning has been imported even in the construction of the provisions of the old Code corresponding to O. 22, in the judgment of this Court in 23 Mad 125 (25)." 5. The spirit of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code may be taken to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties finally and conclusively if it is possible to do so in cases in which any one of the parties dies. A case should not be left undecided. It is not meant to be left at an intermediate stage if it is possible to have it finally determined. In case of the death, of a plaintiff when the court comes to know of his death, and of the persons who are competent to represent the deceased plaintiff after his death, it is competent for the court to take suitable action. Viewed in this light, in my humble opinion the words legal representative must be construed as including those persons who are in a position to carry on further proceedings in the suit. Normally such persons are all the heirs of the deceased plaintiff. There may be cases where even some of the heirs may represent the deceased plaintiff. In all these cases, such persons may be the legal representatives of the deceased within the meaning of Order 22, rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. An application must be made for bringing on record those persons who had the right in law to continue the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff, that is, who represent him for the purpose of prosecuting the suit. 6. An application must be made for bringing on record those persons who had the right in law to continue the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff, that is, who represent him for the purpose of prosecuting the suit. If their names have been brought to the notice of the court, it becomes the duty of the court to array them as party whether as plaintiffs or defendants. Order 22, rule 3 (1) is purposely worded in sufficiently wide language. Once the court is made aware of the persons who are in the position to prosecute the suit, it is left to it to make them a party. 7. In the case before me, the two plaintiffs Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad became tenants-in-common with Mst. Asmat Nuri and Abdul Rehman in the room in dispute left by deceased Abdul Karim, even on the assumption that they had no interest in the lite-time of Abdul Karim. It is settled law that one of the co-shasers has a right to eject a trespasser without joining the other co-sharers. After the death of Abdul Karim, the two appellants Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad, could, therefore, carry on the suit filed by their father Abdul Karim to eject the defendants who were alleged to be trespassers. They could, therefore continue the suit filed by their father. If the other co-sharers Mst Asmat Nuri and Abdul Rehman wanted to join with them in that litigation, the court had ample powers under Order 1 rule 10 to implead them though their application under Order 22, rule 3, dated the 30th July, 1951 was dismissed. One of the reasons why the son was held to continue the appeal filed by his father in Ishwarlals case (6) was that if the son of the deceased-appellant wanted the injunction and the mother was indifferent about it, the appeal could proceed with. In the case before me, the two appellants Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad had the right to eject the trespassers from the disputed room and I do not find any reason why such right should be denied to them when they had within limitation applied to the court of the Munsif on the 18th April, 1951, that the suit hied by their father may, hence forward, continue in their names. 8. 8. In this view of the matter, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgments of the counts below. I grant the application of Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad dated the 18th April, 1951. As they are already on record as plaintiffs, it is only necessary that the name of Abdul Karim be struck off. I order chat his name be struck off. I further treat the applications dated the 30th July, 1951 made on behalf of Mst. Asmat Nuri and Abdul Rehman to be under Order 1, rule 10 G. P. G. and order that they should be made plaintiffs in this case. I remand the case to the trial court for decision in accordance with law after carrying out the directions contained above. The costs in this appeal and in the lower appellate court shall abide by the result,