Judgment Anwar Ahmad, J. 1. This appeal by one of the judgment-debtors is directed against the order dated the 30th June 1967 passed by the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1967, directing that Execution Case No. 14 of 1966 will not proceed further and that the decree-holder respondent be given an opportunity to get the final decree amended as early as possible. 2. It appears that Ram Gayan Singh (Defendant No. 2), son of Gauri Singh, died after the passing of the preliminary decree but before the final decree was prepared and his heirs and legal representatives, namely, his widow and daughter, had not been substituted. Similarly, Manbharan Singh (defendant No. 4), one of the Judgment-debtors named in the decree, died in 1961. The final decree had been prepared in his name, although he was dead at the time of the preparation of the decree. The stand taken by the appellant was that, the final decree having been made against the aforesaid two persons who were defendants 2 and 4 to the suit and they having died earlier, it was a nullity and, as such, the execution could not proceed. 3. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the suit could not be said to have abated as both the defendants died after the passing of the preliminary decree. He was also of the opinion that some time should be given to the decree-holder to bring on record the legal representatives of the two deceased defendants (Nos. 2 and 4). 4. Mr. Jugeshwar Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the final decree was not a nullity and directing the same to be amended as early as possible. There is no substance in this contention of learned counsel. It is settled by decisions of this- Court that there is no abatement of a suit if one of the defendants dies after the passing of the preliminary decree but before the final decree has been prepared. A reference, in this connection, may be made to Ramsewak Mishra V/s. Mt. Deorati Kuer, 1962 BLJR 400 = ( AIR 1962 Pat 178 ), where the plaintiff died after the passing of the preliminary decree, leaving behind him a number of heirs. A reference, in this connection, may be made to Ramsewak Mishra V/s. Mt. Deorati Kuer, 1962 BLJR 400 = ( AIR 1962 Pat 178 ), where the plaintiff died after the passing of the preliminary decree, leaving behind him a number of heirs. Some of the heirs were already on record but his widow was not brought on record in his place. Thereafter, the final decree was passed. The obiection taken was that, the final decree having been passed "in favour of a dead person, it was void and ineffectual and was liable to be set aside. It was held that the final decree was liable to be set aside but the case was sent down to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to bring on record the widow of the deceased plaintiff. In the present case, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has also done the same thing and directed the decree-holder to get the heirs of defendants 2 and 4 substituted in their place. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. A reference may also be made to Shanti Devi V/s. Khodai Prasad Singh, AIR 1942 Pat 340, wherein it has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court that, if a party dies after the preliminary decree, the mortgage suit does not abate but no final decree can be prepared unless the legal representatives of the deceased are brought on record and, for this purpose, the matter is governed by Rule 10 and not by Rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Raghu-nandan Sahu V/s. Badri Pandey, AIR 1945 Pat 380, it has been laid down that the provisions of abatement under Order 22 of the Code do not apply in a case of death of a party after the passing of the preliminary decree in a partition suit. In such a case, the Court should adjourn the proceedings sine die with liberty to the plaintiff to continue the proceedings to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased. These two cases were approved by a Full Bench of this Court In Baijnath Ram V/s. Mt. Tunkowati Kuer, AIR 1962 Pat 285 (FB). 5. In such a case, the Court should adjourn the proceedings sine die with liberty to the plaintiff to continue the proceedings to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased. These two cases were approved by a Full Bench of this Court In Baijnath Ram V/s. Mt. Tunkowati Kuer, AIR 1962 Pat 285 (FB). 5. In view of the decisions referred to above, it cannot be accepted that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was wrong in staying the execution and giving an opportunity to the decree-holder respondent to get the final decree amended as early as possible. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs.