JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - This first appeal from order has been filed against an order dated 5th May, 1984, passed by the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, whereby in an appeal preferred by the Appellant an application to set aside the abatement was dismissed and the appeal was held to have abated on the ground that Smt. Jamuna Devi who was Respondent No. 2 in the appeal had died during the pendency of the appeal and the application to substitute her legal representatives had been filed beyond the limitation prescribed without any sufficient cause. 2. The facts in brief necessary for the decision of this appeal are that Kalloo Singh Respondent No. 1 and Smt. Jamuna Devi filed a suit in the trial court for injunction against the Appellant and the proforma Defendant-Respondents 2 and 3. This suit was contested by the Appellant but was decreed on 6th October, 1980 by the trial court restraining the Appellant alone who was Defendant No. 1 in the suit from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs. No decree was passed by the trial court as against Respondents 2 and 3. Aggrieved by that decree the Appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge and it is this appeal which was abated by the order appealed against. 3. Kalloo Singh, Respondent No. 1 is the sole surviving Plaintiff, the other Plaintiff Smt. Jamuna Devi having died as indicated above. He has put in appearance and is represeated by Shri R.C. Singh, Advocate. Since the trial court had passed a decree only against the Appellant and not against Respondents 2 and 3 and it is only the Appellant who had preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court against the decree of the trial court, it is not necessary to serve Respondents 2 and 3 with the notice of the appeal. Counsel for the parties has made a prayer that the appeal may be decided finally at this very stage. I have accordingly heard them on the merits of the appeal. 4. It is not disputed that Kalloo Singh Respondent No. 1 was one of the co-Plaintiffs along with Smt. Jamuna Devi deceased and that Smt. Jamuna Devi died leaving behind two legal representatives the Appellant as her son and Smt. Basanti Devi as her daughter. I have accordingly heard them on the merits of the appeal. 4. It is not disputed that Kalloo Singh Respondent No. 1 was one of the co-Plaintiffs along with Smt. Jamuna Devi deceased and that Smt. Jamuna Devi died leaving behind two legal representatives the Appellant as her son and Smt. Basanti Devi as her daughter. An application was made before the lower appellate court on behalf of the Appellant to substitute Smt. fiasanti Devi also as legal representative of Smt. Jamuna Devi, the other legal representative Kalloo Singh being already on record as co-Plaintiff. This application was dismissed by the lower appellate court by the order appealed against holding that it was highly belated and no sufficient cause bad been made out for the delay. 5. In my opinion, the order directing the appeal to have abated cannot be sustained inasmuch as one of the legal representatives of Smt. Jamuna Devi namely, Kalloo Singh was already on record and the only thing which was required to be done in the instant case was to implead Smt. fiasanti Devi also as a Respondent in the appeal so that all the legal representatives of Smt. Jamuna Devi were represented. In Mahabir Prasad Vs. Jage Ram and Others, AIR 1971 SC 742 it was held: Where in a proceeding a party dies and one of the legal representatives is already on the record in another capacity, it is only necessary that he should be described by an appropriate application made in that behalf that he is also on the record, as an heir and legal representative. Even if there are other heirs and legal representatives and no application for impleading them is made within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act the proceeding will not abate. In the instant case, as seen above, there was no dispute that one of the legal representatives of Smt. Jamuna Devi who was also a co-Plaintiff in the suit namely Kalloo Singh Respondent No. 1 was already on record and as such the appeal could not abate. There is no limitation prescribed for impleading the remaining legal representatives on record and this could be done any time before the disposal of the appeal in order to keep the record straight. There is no limitation prescribed for impleading the remaining legal representatives on record and this could be done any time before the disposal of the appeal in order to keep the record straight. That, in the instant case, was done and the lower appellate court should accordingly have impleaded Smt. Basanti Devi also in the appeal and disposed it of on merits. 6. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 5th May, 1984 passed by the Civil Judge Bulandshahr holding that civil appeal No. 521 of 1980 filed by the applicant had abated, is set aside and the lower appellate court is directed to decide the said appeal on merits after impleading Smt. Basanti Devi as a Respondent and giving an opportunity of hearing to her. The record of the court below shall be sent down forthwith. In the circumstances of the case, however, their shall be no order as to costs.