ORDER H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. In this application by one of the defendants the question is whether, in the circumstances of the present case, this defendant can be deemed adequately to represent the estate of the other, his father, who died during the pendency of the suit, "notwithstanding the non-impleading in time of his daughter, who is an heir under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. 2. The facts of the case are the following. The non applicant brought a suit against the applicant and his father, Ram Gopal, for a sum of money as the price of goods delivered, and of money lent. Some preliminary objections were made, written statement was filed and issues were framed. Ram Gopal defendant No. 1 died on 22-1-1937 after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956; the legal representatives being the present applicant (already defendant No. 2) and the daughter Tribeni Bai No application for impleading her was made in time, nor any, under O. 22 R 9 for setting aside the abatement. An application for action under O. 22 R. 2 was made on 23-7-57. As a result, out of his two representatives one was already on record, and the other was not substituted. The applicant (defendant) contended that the suit had entirely abated and should be dismissed as such; the plaintiff, however argued that for one thing it was a case of joint promise with joint and several liability of the two defendants, and on the other, even without such joint and several liability, the defendant already on record adequately represented the estate of the deceased defendant for the purposes of the suit notwithstanding that the other legal representatives has been omitted. 3. On the ground of joint promise with joint and several liability there was really no evidence. The suit was itself on the basis that the business was that of a joint family. On the second ground, namely the adequacy of representation of the estate of the deceased the learned Civil Judge relied upon ruling reported in A.I.R. 1954 Raj 287 and held that the defendant No. 2 adequately represented the estate of the deceased defendant, and as such the suit could proceed. 4. This is a suit in which the right to sue survives the deceased defendant. 4. This is a suit in which the right to sue survives the deceased defendant. Three questions arise out of which the first two have been answered with near unanimity by High Courts to the following effect: Firstly, if any legal representative of the deceased defendant has already been impleaded and is on the record for any purpose whatever, he need not again be brought in by substitution. Secondly, if any of the legal representatives is not already on the record, he has to be brought in by substitution, then the procedure in O. 22 R 4 and R. 9, as the case may be, should be adopted. But the third question is more complicated. When one defendant dies, leaving two or more legal representatives and only one of them has been impleaded, what is the legal consequence of this failure to implead the others ? There has been some difference of opinion between some of the High Courts in the past, but the recent tendency is towards uniformity. 5. The applicant has relied on the ruling reported in Alt Mian vs. Nam Gazi (41 Indian Cases 430) In this case the failure of the appellants to bring on record all the legal representatives of the deceased respondents led to the appeal being declared abated in toto. The appeal arose out of a rent suit. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff-respondent died leaving several heirs, out of whom some are minors the appellant then substituted the major heirs of the deceased. 6. The non-applicant has on the other hand cited the following rulings. In Narayan vs. Amrita (A. I. R. 1923 Nag 101) it was held that even where the plaintiff had failed to implead one out of two legal representatives of the dead defendant, he was entitled to get relief against the legal representatives whom he had actually impleaded. This view has been followed in later rulings of the same High Court as for example Abdul Baki vs Bansilal (A. I. R. 1945 Nag 83), Sheoram vs. Atmaram (A. I. R. 1943 Nag 14). In the latter ruling it was pointed out that if any legal representative was already on the record failure to file a petition expressly to get him substituted for the deceased defendant was not fatal. In the latter ruling it was pointed out that if any legal representative was already on the record failure to file a petition expressly to get him substituted for the deceased defendant was not fatal. After all the object of filing such an application was only to intimate the court of the death of the party and to place the legal representatives on record within time. If such persons are already parties to the case the mere non-filing of an application was not of any consequence. In the former ruling some of the legal representatives were not impleaded. There, as in the present case, it was not alleged that the omission of those legal representatives was collusive. As long as some of the legal representatives had been brought on the record in time it was immaterial if the others were not so impleaded. In fact, it was held in this case that the others should be impleaded at any time within 3 years as provided in Article 181 Limitation Act. 7. The same view has been held by other High Courts as well. In Mahadeo vs. Baleshwar Prasad A.I.R. 1939 All 626) it was held that where the plaintiff failed on the death of some of the defendants in the suit to implead their legal representatives or to implead one of the defendants in appeal, he was still entitled to obtain a decree against the remaining defendants, suit abating only against the deceased defendants and the defendant not impleaded in appeal. The suit did not abate as a whole. In Lala Anant Lal vs. Ram Adhar (A. I. R. 1942 Ouch 216) the plaintiff who was suing on a hand-note executed by a defendant who died during the pendency of the suit impleaded the sons, but failed to implead the widow who acquired the interest of her husband, in the estate after the coming into force of Act XVIII of 1937. The court held that the estate was sufficiently represented. The court held that the estate was sufficiently represented. "The suit was instituted bona fide against some of the legal representatives and the decree was obtained without fraud or collusion Even on the assumption that the widow was not bound by the decree obtained behind her back on the ground that she was not impleaded as a defendant to the suit, there is no good reason why the suit should not have been decreed against such defendants who are joined as legal representatives of the deceased". There is close similarity with the present case; the daughter who has not been impleaded, became a representative (heir) under recent enactment; the omission was not the result of collusion or fraud. Finally we have the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1954 Raj 287. Here the appellant after making due inquiries impleaded two out of the three sons. There was no collusion or fraud. As pointed out by the learned Civil Judge the same principles are applicable to this case also. 8. To summaries the foregoing discussion it is generally accepted now that substitution need not be by a separate petition, if the legal representative or representatives happen to be on the record already impleaded as party. Secondly it is to be noted that the substitution is to enable the estate of the deceased defendant to be represented in cases where the cause of action survives the death of the defendant, and not necessarily everyone of the legal representatives. Thirdly, as long as there is no collusion or fraud, the failure to implead one or more of several legal representatives does not lead to the abatement of the suit as a whole as long as one of the legal representatives is so impleaded. 9. In the result, I find that this application is without substance and I dismiss it. Costs to the plaintiff-respondents and pleader's fee on minimum contesting scale. Application dismissed.