JUDGMENT Plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, partially modifying the decree of the trial Court, and in addition, directing the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 250/- by way of compensation u/s 95 of the C.P.C. for obtaining an under for attachment before judgment un insufficient grounds. This Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following two substantial questions of law :-- (1) Whether the appeal filed in the lower Court had abated on account of the failure of the surviving defendant-appellants to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellant Keshrimal on record? (2) Whether the Court had jurisdiction to award the compensation on the facts and circumstances of the case? Question No. 1 :-- One of the co-defendants namely Keshrimal who was one of the co-appellants, before the lower Appellate Court, had expired. No application was moved by the legal Representatives seeking substitution in place of the deceased appellant thereat that the decree being joint and indivisible the appeal before the lower appellate Court had abated in its entirity and should have been dismissed as not maintainable submitted the learned counsel. The contention though attractive, is devoid of merit. Firstly, Dhanpal admittedly son of late Keshrimal, was already on record. His presence would obstruct the abatement. Secondly, there is nothing on record to suggest that late Keshrimal was survived by any more Legal Representatives other than the son Dhanpal, already on record. In any case, the theory of substantial representation would apply. The contention that there had been total abatement of the appeal, in the Court below, is, therefore rejected. Question No. 2 :- In so far as, order directing payment of Rs. 250/- by way of compensation for attachment before judgment on insufficient ground is concerned, procedure prescribed by S. 95 CPC was not allowed. No application was made seeking award of compensation. There was no hearing. Rule 372 of M.P. Civil Court Rules and Orders requires such application to be registered as M.C.C., and then to be disposed of. For want of all these having been done by the Courts below, the order awarding compensation cannot be upheld, and is liable to be set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the Courts below directing award of compensation of Rs. For want of all these having been done by the Courts below, the order awarding compensation cannot be upheld, and is liable to be set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the Courts below directing award of compensation of Rs. 250/- by the plaintiff to the defendant Harinarayan is set-aside. Rest of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is maintained. No order as to costs.