JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants gave an application on December 14, 1979, praying that the heirs of respondents 6 and 7 be brought on the record because respondents 6 and 7 had died earlier. Objection was filed on behalf of the respondents that the substitution application was time barred and that the suit has abated. Thereupon, the appellant's learned counsel filed an application, praying that the names of respondents 6 to 11 be deleted because they are unnecessary parties. In para 4 of the affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was conceded that the defendant/respondents 5 to 11 had no right and title over the land in suit. 2. As the appellants say that respondents 6 to 11 are unnecessary parties and as the contesting respondents admit that the defendant-respondents 6 to 11 have no title and interest in the land in suit, it is just and proper that their names be deleted from the array of the parties. The risk will, of course be of that of the appellants, who he made such a prayer. The contesting respondents have opposed this application on the ground that as the heirs of the respondents 6 and 7 have not been brought on the record within the period of limitation, the suit must abate as a whole. The question of abatement does not arise at all because order XXII, Rule 4, Sub-Rule (4), C.P.C. lays down that whenever the court thinks fit it may exempt the plaintiff from the necessary of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgement may, in such a case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. In A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1786, it was held that where a respondent, who is unnecessary party, dies during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal does not abate because non-impleadment of the legal representatives of unnecessary parties is not going to affect the rights and interest of the contesting parties. In A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1786, it was held that where a respondent, who is unnecessary party, dies during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal does not abate because non-impleadment of the legal representatives of unnecessary parties is not going to affect the rights and interest of the contesting parties. A reading of Order XXII, C.P.C. shows that the intention of the Legislature is for the continuation of the suit or appeal or application, as the case may be, as a general rule and it is only an exception that in certain cases abatement order has to be passed. Rules 3 and 4 of Order XXII, C.P.C. lay down that if substitution application is not given in time the suit will abate as far as the deceased plaintiff or the deceased defendant is concerned and that the whole suit shall not abate. Rule 6 of this Order also shows that if either of the parties dies between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgement, the suit shall not abate notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1 to 4. Rule 4(4) of this order was inserted by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976. This submits 4 empowers the court in certain circumstances to exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of those defendants who have contested the suit. Sub-rule 4 was inserted because it had been found that during the course of evidence, the proceedings got delayed because of the death of certain parties. As a remedial measure, the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, Karnataka and Orissa have inserted sub-rule in Rule 4 of Order XXII, C.P.C. to the effect that substitution of legal representatives of a non-contesting defendant would not be necessary. Consequently, with a view of avoid unnecessary delay in substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant, a new sub-rule (4) in Rule 4 was inserted by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 of Order XXII, C.P.C. was further inserted to make provision for substitution beyond the period of limitation if the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant. These provisions show that abatement of a suit or appeal or application should not be ordinarily made unless it is found that the plaintiff or the appellant or the applicant has been wilfully negligent in bringing the heirs of the deceased defendant or respondent on the record. These provisions show that abatement of a suit or appeal or application should not be ordinarily made unless it is found that the plaintiff or the appellant or the applicant has been wilfully negligent in bringing the heirs of the deceased defendant or respondent on the record. The plaintiff or the appellant or the applicant should not be deprived of the right of suit, appeal or revision on some technical ground and if those persons satisfy the court that they were prevented from bringing substitution application due to some reasonable cause the application for substitution should be allowed and abatement order should not be passed. In the instant case, it has been admitted by both the parties that respondents 6 to 11 have no title and interest in the land in suit, and hence it can be presumed that they are unnecessary parties to this appeal. Therefore, the non-impleadment of the heirs of respondents 6 and 7 before the time of limitation will not render this appeal defective and the appeal will not abate because of that. In these circumstances, the objection of the contesting respondents has no weight and is hereby rejected. I allow the application of the appellants for deletion of the names of the respondents 6 to 11 from the array of the parties. 3. It is admitted by both the parties that the village, in which the land in suit is situate, has come within consolidation proceedings. Therefore, this appeal along with the suit abates under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.