Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff in O. S. No. 229 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff of Hosdrug has come up in second appeal having been dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court which has been confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kasaragod in A.S. No. 154 of 1968. C.M.P. No. 9253 of 1975 is for impleading the respondents therein as supplemental respondents, being the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent. C.M.P. No. 9259 of 1975 is for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal as against the persons brought on record as the supplemental respondents (legal representatives of deceased second respondent). 2. When the two petitions, C.M P. Nos. 9258 and 9259 of 1975, came up for hearing, Sri T.P. Kelu Nambiar, counsel for the respondents raised an objection to the maintainability of these petitions. The counsel submitted that the appeal itself is not competent in as much as there was no decree or judgment in law, as the second respondent whose legal representatives are sought to be impleaded had died as early as on 14-12 1972 whereas the appeal before the first appellate court was disposed of only on 317 1974. The counsel, therefore would submit that the petition for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent, and the petition for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal cannot be maintained. There is, T find, substance in this argument as, on the death of the 2nd respondent the appeal had abated, and the decree passed by the first appellate court in ignorance of this fact in the eye of law is a nullity. Strictly speaking, there was no decree to be appealed against. 3. The proper course in the circumstances to be adopted, in my opinion, is to set aside the ineffective decree of the first appellate court, giving the appellant herein an opportunity to take such steps as are necessary to have the abatement set aside, if she is entitled to do so, and to have the matter proceeded with after brining on record the legal representative of the deceased 2nd respondent. In order to enable the appellant to do this the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are set aside and the appellant is directed, if she so chooses, to take appropriate steps to have a proper decree passed by that court with all the necessary parties on record. 4. Sri P.C. Balakrishna Menon, the counsel for the appellant, submits that the two petitions may be sent down to the first appellate court for disposal. I do not however, consider that it is the correct thing to do. As the appeal itself is not competent in this Court, the petitions are also not competent; they are therefore dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek the remedy available to her in the first appellate Court. The decision 1 have taken is in consonance with the provisions of Order XXII, R.9 of Code of Civil Procedure, and the views expressed in the decisions reported in K. Manna v. Santra (AIR 1970 Calcutta 99); Achher Singh v. Ananti (AIR 1971 Punjab 477); Mrs. Gladya Coutts v. Bharkhan Singh (AIR 1956 Patna 373); Mana Devi v. Ram Dhari Devi (AIR 1969 Patna 314) and C. Abdulla v. E.I. Damodaran (AIR 1972 Kerala 116). The petitions are dismissed; and the second appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter to the first appellate court where it would be open to the appellant to move for appropriate reliefs, if so advised, as indicated above.