JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - Petitioners Ramjas and 7 others filed this writ petition against the order dated 29th March, 1971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision arising out of proceedings under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the basic year Khatauni the names of the petitioners as well as the opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular were recorded as co-tenure-holders on khata no. 5 comprising plot nos. 97, 98, 122, 123, 124 and 125 with total area of 1.77 acres. In C.H. Form no. 5 the share of the petitioners was shown to be 1/2 and the other half share was shown to be belonging to opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular. Petitioners filed objection claiming all the plots except plot no 98 of the disputed holding exclusively belonging to them and that the opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular has got share only in plot no. 98. Ram Dular contested the case asserting that he has share in the entire holding in dispute and his name was rightly mutated. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30th March, 1968 and held that the opposite party no. 2 Ram Dular was entitled to share in all the plots in disputed holding. Against the said order the petitioners had preferred an appeal which was allowed on 14.5.70 and it was held that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to share only in plot no. 98 and not in other plots of the disputed holding. Against the said order the opposite party no. 2, Ram Dular preferred revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 29.3.71 and he set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and maintained the order passed by the Consolidation Officer holding that the opposite party no. 2 was entitled to share on all the plots of the disputed holding. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed present writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner no. 4, Dwarika is said to have died on 10th May, 1973 but no steps were taken for impleading his legal heirs and representatives. The writ petition, therefore, abated so far as petitioner no. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed present writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner no. 4, Dwarika is said to have died on 10th May, 1973 but no steps were taken for impleading his legal heirs and representatives. The writ petition, therefore, abated so far as petitioner no. 4 was concerned with the result the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation became final so far as petitioner no. 4 was concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties contended that since the writ petition has abated against the petitioner no. 4 as his legal heirs and representatives were not brought on record and as such the entire writ petition deserves to be dismissed, having abated as a whole because in the event the writ petition succeeds there would be two inconsistent orders relating to the same land in which all the petitioners were claiming joint interest as co-tenure holders the exclusion of the contesting opposite party, except plot no. 98. I have perused the impugned orders as well as the averments contained in the writ petition and I find substance in this contention. 4. It is well settled that the courts will not proceed with an appeal : (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the court's coming to a decision which may be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and therefore, it would lead to the court's passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent, (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary relief against those respondents alone who are still before the court, and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, be ineffective that is to say it could not be successfully executed. These three tests, are not cumulative tests. Even if one of them is satisfied, the court may dismiss the appeal (See A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1181). These tests can be applied in the present writ petition as well. In fact these tests were applied in the writ petition of Anwar Khan v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, A.I.R. 1973 Alld. 146. Even if one of them is satisfied, the court may dismiss the appeal (See A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1181). These tests can be applied in the present writ petition as well. In fact these tests were applied in the writ petition of Anwar Khan v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, A.I.R. 1973 Alld. 146. The aforesaid tests Laid down in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1181 equally apply to a writ petition where one of the petitioners dies and the impugned order becomes final so far as deceased petitioner is concerned and that the interest of the surviving petitioners and deceased petitioner were joint and indivisible and the impugned order is challenged by the petitioners on common grounds. In these circumstances the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed having abated as a whole. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground common to all the petitioners. The interest of the surviving petitioners and the deceased petitioner were joint and indivisible, hence in the event of success of the writ petition there would be two inconsistent and contrary orders. The impugned order against the deceased petitioner has already become final. Thus the writ petition abates as a whole. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.