Short Note : 1. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) had filed the suit against the defendants claiming right of preemption in relation to the suit property. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the common vendors who having earlier sold one portion north-west corner of the suit plot to the plaintiff with an agreement that whenever said defendants would desire to sell the suit plot the plaintiff would have a right of preemption. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who were husband and wife respectively sold the plot to defendant No. 1 on 30.10.1971, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming relief against the defendant No. 1 to execute a registered sale-deed in his favour transferring the suit plot to her and for possession thereof subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by her. The trial Court dismissed the suit as having abated for the reason that the legal representative of deceased defendant No. 3 were not brought on record within time. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court held that in a preemption suit vendors were not necessary parties and at best they could only be proper party. In that view it held that the trial Court was in error in holding the suit having abated. 2. The only point that is required to be considered in this appeal is whether the trial Court was right in rejecting the application for the substitution of the legal representative of the deceased defendant No. 3 who was wife of defendant No. 2 now deceased. The trial Court's judgment in rejecting the substitution application was bad as there was no question of limitation being involved since one of the legal representatives of the deceased, that is to say, defendant No. 2 was already on record. That being so the application for the substitution was wrongly rejected as having been filed beyond the prescribed time for the purpose and in consequence it could not be held that the suit abated. The lower appellate Court completely lost sight of this aspect and entered into an unnecessary controversy whether the vendors are necessary or proper party in a suit for preemption. Therefore the orders of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Case remanded to the trial. Court. Appeal allowed.