JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the keeping of Khalihan over the disputed plot. The trial court decreed the suit: Feeling aggrieved the defendants preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The present second appeal has thus been filed challenging the aforesaid two judgments. 2. It appears that during the pendency of this second appeal appellant No. 1 respondent No. 1 both died. However both the substitution applications were dismissed on 25th February, 1982, the effect of which is that the appeal stands abated as against these persons. As substitution application in respect of defendant-appellant No has been dismissed, the further question arises is as to whether the appeal abates as a whole. The Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad and others v. Shambehari Lal Jagannath and another, reported in 1963 Supreme Court 1909 held that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 4, C.P.C., are not attracted in such cases and that if the appeal has been filed by all the defendants and the appeal abates in respect one of the deceased appellant, the decree in favour of the respondent would become final against his legal representatives, these not having been brought in time. It was held that Order 41 Rule 4, C.P.C., does not empower the Court to pass a decree in favour of the legal representative of the deceased-appellant on hearing an appeal by the surviving appellants even though the decree against him had become final. In such circumstances the Supreme Court has held that the entire appeal will abate. 3. For the reasons stated above, the present appeal abates and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.