Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 10/4/1989 passed by Sri S. N. Gupta, Additional Judicial Commissioner, 1st Court, Ranchi, in Title Appeal No.2 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the said learned court held that the plaintiffs suit has abated. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit as against-the petitioner (Chunni Singh), Munni Singh, Bhukhan Singh, Sugriv Singh Sarwan Singh, vijay Singh and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. In the aforementioned suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a joint written statement. The trial court decreed the suit. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was registered as title Appeal No.2/82 along with his brother Munni Singh. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 of the aforementioned suits were arrayed us pro forma respondents in the memorandum of appeal. 4. The appellant No.2 and the respondent No.4 of the aforementioned appeal died on 28-7-1986 and 1-1-1988 respectively. On 11-7-1988 and 18-8-1988, the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 filed two separate applications praying therein that the entire appeal be dismissed as the heirs and legal representative of the aforementioned appellant No.2 (Munni Singh)and respondent No.4 (Bhukhan Singh) have not been substituted. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the said applications contending inter alia therein that the interest of appellant No.2 was sufficiently represented by the petitioner. 5. It was further contended that as the defendant-appellant No.2 and respondent No.4 filed a joint written statement, the question of abatement of the appeal did not arise. On 1-8-1988, the petitioner had also filed an application for substituting the heirs of the deceased-appellant no.2 and deceased-respondent No.4 wherein it was stated the petitioner was an old man of 90 years and had all along been ill and had no knowledge of procedural requirements of law. 6. It was further stated that the appellant had no knowledge about the death of Bhukhan Singh and came to know of the same on 12-7-1982. Before the learned court of appeal below, both the parties adduced evidence. By reasons of the impugned order, the learned court of appeal below held that the petitioner had knowledge about the date of death of appellant No.2 and respondent No.4. 7. Before the learned court of appeal below, both the parties adduced evidence. By reasons of the impugned order, the learned court of appeal below held that the petitioner had knowledge about the date of death of appellant No.2 and respondent No.4. 7. Learned court of appeal below on the basis of the aforementioned finding came to the conclusion that as the suit had been decreed jointly against the deceased-appellant No.2 and deceased respondent No.4, the appeal has abated. 8. Mr. P. K- Prasad learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two cntentions in support ef this application learned counsel firstly submitted that as an appeal was maintainable even without impleading the other defendants as a party-respondent, the question of abatement of the entire appeal did not arise. Learned counsel has relied upon Sudama Prasad Keshri V/s. Tapeshwar sao reported in 1989 PLJR 819 and in Mt. Parwati Kuer V/s. Manna Lal khetan reported in AIR 1956 Patna 414. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event in a case of this nature, where the petitioner has contended that he was not aware of the intricacies of the law and was aged about 90 years, the learned court of appeal below should have considered this fact as also the fact that the petitioner was a rustic villager and in that view of the matter, he ought to have set aside the abatement. 10. Mr. P. N. Sahu learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appeal has abated as a whole inasmuch as the interest of the parties were joint. Learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri. Chand and others V/s. M/s. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand reported in AIR 1966 SC 1427 and in Netar and others V/s. Jagta reported in AIR 1985 HP 30 . 11. It is now well known by reason of various decisions of the supreme Court of India that the Court should normally set aside the abatement once it is found that the plaintiff-appellant had a good cause for non-filing of an application within the prescribed period. 12. 11. It is now well known by reason of various decisions of the supreme Court of India that the Court should normally set aside the abatement once it is found that the plaintiff-appellant had a good cause for non-filing of an application within the prescribed period. 12. In Bhagwan Swaroop and others V/s. Mool Chand and others reported in AIR 1983 SC 355 , it was held :- "it is true that it was incumbent upon the appellant to implead the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 in time. It is equally true that the appellants were negligent in moving the proper application. We would not question the finding of the High Court that appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 knew about the death of the deceased respondent No.1. This being a suit for partition of joint family property, parties are closely interrelated and it is reasonable to believe that at least some of the appellants must have attended the funeral of the deceased respondent No.1, as contended on behalf of the contesting respondent No.2. There is some force in the contention that when a specific provision is made as provided in 0.22 Rule 4, a report to. the general provision like O. I. R.10 may not be appropriated. But the laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice and not impeding the same. In Sangram Singh V/s. Election Tribunal, Kotah, (1955) 2 SCR 1 : ( AIR 1955 SC 425 ), this Court observed that a Code of Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends ; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties ; not a thing designed to trip people up. This was reaffirmed in Kalipar Das V/s. Bimal Krishna Sen (1983) 1 SCC 14 . " It was further held : "if the trend is to encourage fair play in action in administrative law, it must all the more inhere in judicial approach. Such applications have to be approached with this view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. Undoubtedly, justice according to law ; law to be administered to advance justice. " 13. In Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramrino V/s. Nalini bai Naique reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 275 it was held: "in the instant case Mrs. Undoubtedly, justice according to law ; law to be administered to advance justice. " 13. In Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramrino V/s. Nalini bai Naique reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 275 it was held: "in the instant case Mrs. Nalini Bai had admittedly half share in the property left by the deceased defendant and as she was brought on record within time, she represanted the estate of the deceased defendant and the suit could proceed on merits. In this view the impleadment of other legal representatives at a subsequent stage could not affect validity of the proceedings. In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner dated June 30, 1972 and restore the order of the trial Judge. Since trial of the suit has been delayed, we direct the trial court to make every effort to decide the suit expeditiously. The appellant is entitled to its costs throughout. " 14. The Supreme Court in that case clearly held that the definition of legal representative is inclusive in character and its scope is wide and does not confine to legal heirs only ; instead it stipulates a person who may or may not be heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased but he should represent the estate of the deceased person. 15. The petitioner was the brother of appellant No.2 and had been intermeddling with the properties. He, therefore, in law could have been a legal representative of the appellant No.2. 16. In Hira Lal and another V/s. Gajjan and others reported in 1990 (3)SCC 285 , it was held that an appeal does not abate for non-substitution of heirs of a pro forma party. In this case, respondent No.4 was a pro forma party. 17. In Indraman Koran V/s. Bali Ram Singh and another reported in air 1988 Patna 350, this Court upon taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition V/s. Mst. Kaliji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 held that the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay in filing an application for substitution. 18. In Indraman Koran V/s. Bali Ram Singh and another reported in air 1988 Patna 350, this Court upon taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition V/s. Mst. Kaliji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 held that the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay in filing an application for substitution. 18. In Shag Singh and others v Major Daljit and others reported in 1987 Supp SCC 685, the Supreme Court has held that strict and pedantic approach should not be taken by the court in determining as to whether sufficient cause has been made out for delay in filing application for bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased appellant. 19. It is, therefore, clear that the learned court below committed an illegality in proceeding to hold that the appeal has abated only because the petitioner had knowledge about the dates of death of the appellant no.2 and respondent No.4. It did not at all take into consideration the fact that in his application for substitution, the petitioner had prayed for setting aside the abatement which in view of the provisions contained in order XXII Rule 4 and Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may include an application for condonation of delay, although in the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sec.5 of the Limitation act was not mentioned, but the requisite facts had been pleaded. 20. The Court, therefore, should have proceeded on the basis that the petitioners application for setting aside of abatement included the fact that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application for substitution and/or an application for setting aside the abatement in time. 21. In Mt. Parwati Kuer V/s. Manna Lai Khetan reported in AIR 1956 patna 414, a Full Bench of this Court has held that if a suit is decreed as against various defendants, an appeal is maintainable only at the instance of one or more of the defendants and the appellate court in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil procedure would be entitled to grant relief in favour of a party who has not been impleaded in the appeal. This aspect of the matter has also been considered in Sudama Pd. Keshri V/s. Tapeshwar Sao reported in 1989 PLJR 819. This aspect of the matter has also been considered in Sudama Pd. Keshri V/s. Tapeshwar Sao reported in 1989 PLJR 819. It is true that such course of action has to be taken in exceptional cases, but the said principle has to be kept in mind for the purpose of consideration as to whether in such a case the entire appeal should be directed to be dismissed as having abated in its entirety. If may be found that as an exceptional measure, the Court may be in a position to exercise its discretion under Order XLI Rule 4 read with Order XLI Rule 33 of the code of Civil Procedure to set aside the entire judgment and decree even in relation to those persons who had not preferred an appeal. 22. In Jai Prakash Jalan V/s. M. S. Ram Bilash Paswan reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 224, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the scope, object and purport of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 is to do complete justice to the parties and the scope whereof has been expanded by reason of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. 23. The decision cited by Mr. Sahu cannot be said to have any application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 24. In Sri Chand and others V/s. Mis. Jagdish Pershad reported in AIR 1966 SC 1427 , the Supreme Court was considering the matter of substitution in terms of the Supreme Court Rules. In the aforementioned case the himachal Pradesh High Court has merely followed the decision of the supreme Court in Sri Chand and others case (supra ). The question which have fallen for consideration in this case did not fall for consideration in those cases. 25. Taking thus all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 26. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the learned court below is directed, to pass a fresh order after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs. Civil revision allowed.