Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has made preferred against the order passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Palamau in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1981 holding that the appeal has been abated as a whole as the heirs of appellant No. 2 Ramadhin Ram had not been brought on record in time and the appeal had abated not only against the appellant No. 2 but against all the appellants as right to appeal did not survive in favour of the other appellants as the decree was an indivisible one passed by the Court below;- 2. The facts are required to be reiterated briefly for deciding the issue in this appeal Title Suit No. 12 of 1968 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession on the plea that the grandfather of the plaintiffs, Gokul Sah purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 2.5.1889 giving specific boundaries. The suit land was a Bari land and the vendor Anant was in continuous possession of the suit land and then they sold it to the predecessors of the plaintiffs. But it was wrongly recorded as bakast land of the ex-landlord but it really remained as Chhaparbandi land of Gokul Sah, grand father of the plaintiffs in the Sheista of the ex-landlord, who always accepted rents. Defendants, on the other hand, contended that the land was Bakast land of the ex-landlord and it was correctly recorded in the survey Record of Rights. The suit land was never purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, their father, Babulal was a good Compounder and used to treat the ex-landlord, Babu Amar Dayal Singh and out of love and affection, he orally settled in chhaparabandi the suit land to the predecessor of the defendant, Babulal and thus the defendants came in possession. 3. So the question remains regarding the position whether the lands were Bankast land of the ex-landlord or not. The suit was decreed originally and against that judgment and decree. Title Appeal No. 8 of 1981 was preferred by the defendants-appellants. 3. So the question remains regarding the position whether the lands were Bankast land of the ex-landlord or not. The suit was decreed originally and against that judgment and decree. Title Appeal No. 8 of 1981 was preferred by the defendants-appellants. The appeal was once allowed and against such allowance of the appeal, the plaintiff respondents preferred Second Appeal No. 14 of 1983 (R) before this Court which was accordingly allowed after hearing both the parties and the case was remanded to the 1st appellate Court for proceeding according to the law in the light of the observations made in the second appeal. 4. After the appeal was remanded to the Court below, the respondents after waiting for a long time searched out the records of the appeal from the Records Room of Palamau at Daltonganj and brought before the Camp Court at Garhwa and a petition was filed by the respondents on 18.12.1990 stating that the appeals has been abated as Ramadhin Ram died on 29.12.1989. Copy of the petition was served on the original lawyer in the appellate Court of the appellants. After that the other appellants also appeared and took steps in the case. The Pairvokar of the appellants No. 3 Gulab Ram, who took steps in the case but he did not take steps regarding substitution of heirs of Ramadhin Ram, the appellant No. 2 in the appeal. After two years on 24.3.1992, an objection-petition was filed by the appellants to the effect that appeal had not been abated for the death of Ramadhin Ram had not been denied but they had taken some extraneous grounds that the appellants has not been served with notice by the Appellate Court after the case had come on remand etc. Lalan Kumar, a son of Ramadhin Ram had also filed a petition for getting him impleaded in place of Ramadhin Ram. He had not stated anything as to his two sisters, as according to the respondents, Ramadhin Ram died leaving behind one son and two daughters, but Lalan Kumar only wanted his substitution in place of Ramadhin Ram. Petition filled by Lalan Kumar was not only a cryptic one but devoid of all norms as required under Order XXII of the C.P.C. It was neither affidavit nor any petition was filed separately for setting aside the abatement nor any petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Petition filled by Lalan Kumar was not only a cryptic one but devoid of all norms as required under Order XXII of the C.P.C. It was neither affidavit nor any petition was filed separately for setting aside the abatement nor any petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. All these prayers have been made in a single petition that too by cryptic statement by paying single Court fee and as required, the petition was also not affidavited. Objection was filed against such rejoinder being made and also on the petition of substitution and setting aside of abatement by Lalan Kumar and after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties at length, learned appellate Court passed the impugned order holding that there was no scope of setting aside of abatement in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the appeal had abated as a whole, when the decree passed was a common and indivisible one and the same could not be made divisible by allowing other appellants to continue the appeal with the possibility of inconsistency and passing of contradictory judgment when the decree of the suit against Ramadhin Ram remained intact on the appeal being abated him and his heirs. 5. Mr. P.K. Bhoumik, appearing for and on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Court below had committed error of law in passing the orders of abatement as a whole. He ought to have passed an order of abatement against Ramadhin Ram alone, if substitution petition and prayer made for setting aside even was not allowed, but there was no scope of abating the appeal as a whole. His second submission is that as the parties i.e. the appellants were Hindus governed under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and when Karta of the joint family was already on record and he was entitled to proceed with the appeal for and on behalf of other coparceners then non-substitution of another coparceners in time may not render the; appeal abated as it was only a formality to bring on the records the heirs of deceased coparcener and the same has been satisfied even though be lately by the substitution petition filed on behalf of Lalan Kumar. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. R.K. Prasad appearing on behalf of the respondents have vehemently objected to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants as according to him, the pleas of guidance of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law amongst the appellants are completely a new one as introduced in this Misc. Appeal for the first time as no such plea was there either in the pleadings in the original suit or before the 1st Appellate Court. His further submission is that there was no scope of abatement of the appeal in part against the heirs of Ramdhin Ram alone as the suit was decreed only for declaration of title and for Khas possession against all the defendants, there having no specific share against any of the defendants. In view of such a position the decree became indivisible and same cannot be made to divide to have inconsistent judgment or decree in appeal by allowing the decree as a part to remain intact against the deceased appellant, Ramadhin Ram. 7. It appears that the learned Court below had taken much pains in deciding the whole issue on different angles as raised from the learned Counsel for both the parties and I do not find any illegality being committed by the learned Court below. Mr. Bhoumik, appearing anything regarding error being committed by the learned Court below. His only submission is that the substitution matter has been liberalised by the Apex Court by various judgments and it has now become established law that before going for technicalities in these matters the substantive issue on factual aspect of; the case should be decided leaving aside technical flaws. But such liberalized view may always be considered in respect of the suit, but once a decree has been passed or dismissal has been recorded in a suit then some right has been accrued to the adverse party and appeal being the creature of Statue, once a right accrued to the party cannot be liberally construed to be waived away when the mandatory provisions of law are not being complied with Courts proceedings are always for the person who takes care of it. A person who sleeps, law cannot give him any relief by knocking at his doors. A person who sleeps, law cannot give him any relief by knocking at his doors. He must come to the Court to seek his relief, more so, as is found from the records, the appellants in this case are unbanised people having educational qualifications and most of them are service holders. In view of the above position, their cases cannot be compared or tallied with village rustic people having no literacy. 8. In this case, Ramadhin Ram died in the year 1989 and when the Second Appeal was heard, it was remanded in presence of the learned Counsel of both the parties and after remittance when the records were placed before the 1st Appellant Court, the appellants were informed through their lawyer and it is not the case that the lawyer did not inform his clients as it appears that Gulab Ram, pairvikar of the appellants had taken steps on different dates. There is no plausible reason when the petition of abatement was filed on 18.12.1990 and the copy of the same was made available to the appellants Counsel then they remained sleeping over it for long two years, when objection was filed on 24.3.1992 only. Such delay has also not been explained except some vague and extraneous submissions. Moreover Lalan Ram, son of Ramadhin Ram is serving in the Forest Department and resides in the same vicinity with the other appellants. It cannot be construed by stretching imagination to its last elastic limit that Lalan Kumar was not in the know of the appeal being filed by his father and it is also not the case of the appellant. 9. Thus, I find that the appeal had already been abated against Ramdhin Ram long back before the petition dated 18.12.1990 was filed by the respondents. There is no condonation petition for settling aside the abatement except a vague prayer without giving any cogent reasons or explanation for it, not the petition was even affidavit as required under the law. So, the appeal against Ramadhin Ram was abated and there is no scope of setting aside of such abatement oh such belated date. 10. Now, when the appeal has been abated against Ramadhin Ram, the appeal must have been abated as a whole as the decree was ah indivisible and a concrete one against all the defendants and the is no scope of making it divisible. 10. Now, when the appeal has been abated against Ramadhin Ram, the appeal must have been abated as a whole as the decree was ah indivisible and a concrete one against all the defendants and the is no scope of making it divisible. There is no scope for having any inconsistency in the decree if the appeal is kept alive for other appellants on record. The right as prayed by the appellants derived from the ancestor and such ancestral right having no divisible shares, cannot be made to adjudicate in appeal giving right of survival of the appeal for the rest of the appellants. 11. It has further been stated and brought on record by Mr. R.K. Prasad that after the impugned order was passed, the decree in the suit was put to execution and the respondents have already taken possession of the suit property. There was no prayer from the side of the appellants for stay after filling of the appeal and the same remained pending for long three years under the hearing Order XLI, Rule 11 of the C. P.C It appears that the appellants are not vigilant and by they have just filed this appeal without having any mind to proceed with live same with due earnest. 12. In view of the above position, I do not find any force in this appeal and practically the same has become infractions when the decree has been satisfied after execution. The appeal is dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11, C.P.C.