G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-7 1975 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, bangalore Dist. , Bangalore in RA No. 74/ 1974 on his file, allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1975 passed by the I Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore, in OS No. 395/68 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a registered company with its registered office at Calicut and branch office at Malleswaram, Bangalore. One of the purpose of the company is to run chit transactions. The 1st defendant raju became a member of a chit group. At the 4th auction he was the successful bidder on 10-1-1964, at a discount of Rs. 1,250. He furnished the 2nd defendant as surety on 19-2-1964 and they executed a deed of simple mortgage hypothecating the immovable property described in the schedule. The amount of mortgage was rs. 4,500 and interest to be paid was at 12% p. a. Thereafter the 1st defendant made payment amounting to Rs. 2,550. He failed to pay the balance in spite of demands. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,500 + 1,980 towards interest in all Rs. 6,480, and the amount of Rs. 255 paid by the 1st defendant was deducted therefrom. Hence, the suit was for recovery of Rs- 6,225 on mortgage along with costs and future interest. It was discovered when summons were sent thai 2nd defendant was dead on 24-4-1968 and an application at IA I was filed to bring his LRs on record on 8-11-1968. Notice of the application was sen to the proposed LRs. But they did not file objections for bringing LRs on record. Hence, the suit was amended by bringing the LRs of the deceased 2nd defendant on record and the suit proceeded and ultimately the suit was decreed by the trial court as prayed for. The LRs of the deceased 2nd defendant, however, weat up in appeal before the learned Prl. Civil judge, Bangalore Dist. , Bangalore, in RA no. 74/1974 and the learned Prl. Civil judge, raised the following point as arising for his consideration in the appsal from the arguments addressed before him. (1) Whether the suit against the deceased 2nd defendant is maintainable? Civil judge, Bangalore Dist. , Bangalore, in RA no. 74/1974 and the learned Prl. Civil judge, raised the following point as arising for his consideration in the appsal from the arguments addressed before him. (1) Whether the suit against the deceased 2nd defendant is maintainable? he held that the suit against the deceased 2nd defendant was not maintainable and in that view he modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court by deleting the liability against the LRs of the deceased 2nd defendant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has instituted the above second appeal before this Court. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before me that when there were defendants more than one in a suit, the LRs of the deceased defendant could be brought on record in accordance with law since the suit did not become void ab initio. Hence, he submitted chat since the LRs were brought on record In accordance with law, the 1st appellate Court was not justified in holding that the suit against the deceased 2nd defendant was a nullity as he was dead before filing the suit and that the LRs could not be brought on record. ( 4 ) AS against that, the learned Advocate appearing for the contending defendants respondents argued supporting the judgment and decree of the 1st appellate court. He submittld that since the deceased 2nd defendant died on 24-4-1968 and the suit was instituted thereafter, the suit against a dead person was a nullity. ( 5 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is : whether the trial Court was justified in bringing the LRs of the deceased 2nd defendant on record and in proceeding with the suit ? ( 6 ) BOTH the counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of C, Muthu v. Bharat Match Works (1 ). Therein the question at issue was no doubt whether a suit brought against a person who is later discovered to have been dead at the time the suit was filed, could be amended by substituting another person as defendant. Therein the question at issue was no doubt whether a suit brought against a person who is later discovered to have been dead at the time the suit was filed, could be amended by substituting another person as defendant. In the course of judgment their Lordships have reviewed the case law on the point and have on a careful review of the decisions laid down the following propositions in the matter of bringing the LRs of the deceased defendant on record thus :"a careful review of the decisions of the several High Courts relating to substitution of a defendant in a suit in place of the original defendant makes it clear- (1) that no such substitution can be permitted in a case where there was a sole defendant, (2) Where there are more defendants than one and one of them was dead when the suit was filed the Courts have held that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant can be brought on record subject to any question of limitation that may be raised by the legal representative of the deceased person who were brought on record as the suit had been validly presented in so far as the living defendants are concerned and (3) where an appeal is filed against a person who was dead on the date of the presentation of the memorandum of appeal, the Courts have held that the appellant can be permitted to bring the legal representatives of the dead person on record". Thus, it is obvious that where there were defendants more than one and one of them was dead before the Institution of the suit, it is permissible for the plaintiff to bring the LRs of the deeeased defendant on record, provided, the Courts should hear the objections if any raised by the proposed LRs with regard to the question of limitation. (Vide Sirsir Kumar \. Mahindar Kumar (2) ). ( 7 ) THUS, it is a well established proposition of law that the suit is not bad at its inception when there are defendants more than one, even when one of the defendants was dead prior to the institution of the suit. In such circumstances, it is permissible for the plaintiff to bring the LRs of the deceased defendant on record, provided the Courts should hear the objections if any raised by the proposed LRs with regard to the question of limitation. In such circumstances, it is permissible for the plaintiff to bring the LRs of the deceased defendant on record, provided the Courts should hear the objections if any raised by the proposed LRs with regard to the question of limitation. In the instant case, an application for bringing the LRs of the deceased 2nd defendant was filed as per I A I on 8-11-1968. The LRs were served. They entered appearance. But, they did not object to the application for bringing the LRs on record. Thus, the Court has followed the procedure and has substituted the LRs of the deceased 2nd defendant. It is valid under Or. 1, r. 10 (2) r. w. Or. 22, R. 4 of CPC. That being so, it is obvious that the learned civil Judge was not justified in thinking that the present suit was bad in its inception so far as defendant-2 was concerned and that the plaintiff could not substitute lrs of the deceased 2nd defendant at all. The view taken by the learned Civil Judge is contrary to law and has to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, I hold that the appeal is entitled to succeed. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the 1st appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are sustained and restored. The plaintiff's suit is decreed on the same terms as it is decreed by the trial Court. ( 9 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs of this appeal. --- *** --- .