Judgment :- No doubt the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in appeal filed by the respondent herein before the Subordinate Judge was a still-born the defendant in the suit was dead by the time the appeal was filed. In such cases, the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply. There is no question of bringing on record legal representatives as there was no valid appeal. The remedy of the appellant is to cause title amended, if it is within time to file the" appeal against the legal representatives. If it is out of time, the remedy is to apply for condonation of delay in filing the against the legal representatives. 2. In this case, an application to bring on record the legal representatives was filed respondent herein, as if the defendant was alive at the time of filing of the appeal. The below has accepted the explanation given by the respondent that she was not in town time of filing the appeal. According to her, she had provided her advocate with necessary funds for preferring the appeal even a few days prior to the date of filing the appeal and the place. It is her evidence that she came to know the death of the defendant only after return to the place and immediately thereafter she filed the petition to bring the legal representatives on record. It is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has evidence on both sides in the application. But, the list of witnesses is not appended at bottom of the judgment. 3. This Court had on prior occasions pointed out that Rule 84 of the Civil Rules of Practice should be strictly followed and adhered to by the subordinate judiciary. Unfortunately, has not been done in the present case also. Under Rule 84 of the Civil Rules of Practice, judgment of the Court shall be headed and drawn up in the same manner as a decree shall also state the dates on which the case was heard as in Form No.24 and a list of exhibits filed and witnesses examined shall be annexed thereto. The language of the rule mandatory. The Subordinate Courts are bound to annex a list of witnesses and a list exhibits to the judgment. 4. The language of the rule mandatory. The Subordinate Courts are bound to annex a list of witnesses and a list exhibits to the judgment. 4. Though the contention put forward by the petitioner is correct in law, I am of the that interests of justice require that an opportunity should be given to the respondent prosecute the appeal as against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant condoning the delay. It is possible to allow this revision petition and direct the respondent file a fresh appeal with an application for condonation of delay. That would only mean further proceedings and further delay. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in interests of justice, I am of the view that the procedure can be suitably modified and appropriate orders can be made in this revision petition itself. 5. For the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Subordinate Judge, the respondent should be put on terms. Hence, the respondent is directed to pay a sum Rs.300 (Rupees three hundred only) by way of costs to the petitioners ’ counsel appearing this court on or before 14.2.1991. If the amount is not paid, the appeal filed by respondent herein before the Subordinate Judge will be dismissed. 6. Post the civil revision petition on 15.2.1991. V.K. Order accordingly.