Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order, refusing to re-admit the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the delay in filing the application under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code" (registered as Misc. No.10 of 1985/17 of 1986 has been properly explained. 2. The relevant facts and short and simple. Title suit No.32 of 1973, filed by the appellant, impleading Respondent No.1 Rama Singh as defendant no.1, was dismissed by the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Patna. The appellant preferred Title Appeal No.73 of 1975 before the District Judge, Patna which was admitted and notices issued. It appears that respondent No.1 (Rama singh) to the appeal died on 8-12-1981 leaving behind his widow Smt. Radhika kuer as his sole hire. The appellant filed an application dated 3-3-1982 on 12-3-1982 for substitution of the aforementioned widow Radhika Kuer in place of Rama Singh, the respondent No.1. The said petition is at page 78 of the lower Court record. On 20th October, 1982 another petition was filed on behalf of the appellant stating that the petition dated 12th March, 1982 was filed within time as the Civil Court was closed from 7th March to 11th March 1982 on account of Holi holidays and thus no formal petition for condonation of delay is required. It further appears from the record that the petition dated 12th March, 1982 was not pressed on 12th March, 1982. After repeated adjournments, on one ground or the other, the appeal was called out on 18-8-1982 for its hearing. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. By an order dated 18th August, 1982, the appellant was directed to press his petition dated 12th March, 1982, No one on behalf of the appellant, however, passed the substitution petition on 10-4-1985. The appeal as well as the substitution petitioner both were dismissed for default as no one appeared to press them despite repeated calls by a composite order dated 3rd July, 1985. The appellant filed an application dated 3rd July, 1985 under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code for re-admitting the appeal on the ground mentioned therein surprisingly impleading Respondent No.1, who was already dead, as opposite party No.1. A petition dated 3rd July 1985 under Sec.5 of the Limitation act was also filed on behalf of the appellant to condone the delay. A petition dated 3rd July 1985 under Sec.5 of the Limitation act was also filed on behalf of the appellant to condone the delay. From the record, it appears that on 2nd July, 1986 a rejoinder was filed on behalf of Radhika Kuer, the heir of Late Rama Singh through not impleaded as a party, alleging that the Misc. case is hopelessly barred by limitation ; that the plea of illness taken is also false and fabricated ; and that the certificate of Dr. Harendra Tiwary filed by the appellant in support of the restoration is fabricated and connected paper. The appellant, Radhika Kuer, as also other parties were beard on 2-7-1986 itself on the question of limitation and admission of the Miscellaneous case and by the impugned order of the even date the Misc. case as also petition seeking condonation, both were dismissed holding that the delay has not been properly and convincingly explained. The certified copy of the impugned order, however, carried the name of the deceased respondent No.1 Rama Singh as an opposite party as he was shown as such in the petition under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code. The appellant filed this appeal impleading Ram Singh aforementioned but without impleading his legal representative Radhika Kuer. 3. Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that court below as wrong in not admitting the Miscellaneous petition and dimissing the same on the ground of limitation and ought to have re-admitted the appeal. He when I pointed out to him that in the absence of the widow of respondent No.1 no effective order was/is permissible, replies that it was/is not necessary to do so. 4. A question arises now as to whether any effective order can be passed in this appeal or was permissible in the court below in absence of Smt. Radhika kuer, widow of Rama Singh as party. In my view, the impleading of Rama singh as respondent No.1, who was admittedly dead, to this appeal was a blunder on the part of the appellant. In the absence of the widow of respondent No.1, no order can be passed by this court directing re-admission of the appeal and/or setting aside the finding in regard to the question of limitation and that part of the impugned order by which the substitution petition was dismissed for default. 5. In the absence of the widow of respondent No.1, no order can be passed by this court directing re-admission of the appeal and/or setting aside the finding in regard to the question of limitation and that part of the impugned order by which the substitution petition was dismissed for default. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed but in peculiar facts and circumstances without most. Appeal dismissed.