JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This is an application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased appellant No. 2. During the pendency of the second appeal, appellant No. 2 expired on 20.10.1996. A memo supported by affidavit was filed by counsel for the respondent indicating such death of appellant No. 2. Thereafter the present application has been filed. 2. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that an application under Order 22, Rule 3, CPC, should have been filed and since the period for filing petition for substitution was over, petition for setting aside abatement should have been also filed. It is, therefore, contended that the application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Section 151, CPC is not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners who is also the counsel for the other appellants relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court, 742 (Mahavir Prasad v. Jago Ram and Ors.) contended that one of the legal representatives of deceased appellant No. 2, namely his mother, was already on record as appellant No. 1 and as such there was no abatement of the appeal. The other legal representatives can be brought on record by merely filing an application for setting aside abatement or for condonation of delay. 4. There is no doubt that in view of the decision reported in Mahabir Prasad Vs. Jage Ram and Others when some of the legal representatives of a deceased appellant or respondent are on record in some other capacity, the appeal may not abate even though the other legal representatives are not brought on record. The decision of the Supreme Court has been followed in the decision of this Court reported in 63 (1987) CLT 232 (Ghanashyam Agarwalla and Anr. v. Jagabandhu Mahanta and Ors.). In the decision reported in Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick and Others it has been held that where estate of the deceased is sufficiently represented, it cannot be said that the appeal abates on the death of a party. v. Jagabandhu Mahanta and Ors.). In the decision reported in Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick and Others it has been held that where estate of the deceased is sufficiently represented, it cannot be said that the appeal abates on the death of a party. The learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, correct in stating that non-impletion of the other legal representatives of deceased appellant No. 2 within the time prescribed did not have the effect of abatement of the appeal. Even then, to make the record complete, it is the duty of the appellants to bring all the legal representatives on record and since one of the appellants had died, it was the duty of the other appellants to do so. Such view gains ground from the observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the decision reported in Daya Ram and Others Vs. Shyam Sundari, . 5. In the present case, only after the respondent filed memo with affidavit indicating about the death of appellant No. 2, an application has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No. 2, u/s 151, read with Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. Since addition of a party under Order 1, Rule 10 or even u/s 151 if the said provision is at all applicable, is discretionary and the Court must be satisfied about the bona fides of such an application. In the present case it has been asserted by the legal representatives of deceased appellant No. 2 that due to their illiteracy, no application had been filed earlier. Having regard to the aforesaid aspect. I am inclined to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellant No. 2 on record as appellants 2/a to 2/d. This order is, however, subject to the condition that a sum of Rs. 100/- is to be paid by way of cost to the counsel for the respondent within a period of three weeks from today. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.