( 1 ) IN the course of the hearing of this writ petition, an interesting aspect of law relating to the substitution of a deceased litigant by the legal representative has arisen for determination. The brief facts are necessary for purpose of illustrating the points. Deceased Kakanna, the original applicant had filed an application before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights and the tribunal dismissed the application holding that Kakanna's claim was unjustified and that consequently, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Kakanna filed a writ petition before this Court assailing the correctness of that order and the case was transferred to the Appellate Authority which had then been set up by virtue of the requirement that all pending proceedings at that time must be transferred to the Appellate Authority for decision. At that stage, one Krishna Reddy appeared before the Appellate Authority on the basis of a power of attorney executed in his favour by Kakanna and it was pointed out that Kakanna was a man of advanced years aged approximately 94 and consequently, Krishna Reddy sought to represent him in his capacity as power of attorney holder. Thereafter, the proceeding made some headway and Krishna Reddys evidence came to be recorded and he was also cross-examined. The Appellate Authority came to be abolished and a C. P. was therefore filed for transfer of the proceedings to this Court. After the C. P. was filed, Krishna Reddy filed an original suit before the Civil Court No. 5085 of 1991 praying for grant of an injunction restraining the defendants to that suit out of whom respondent 5 who is the purchaser and the main contesting party before me was defendant 2. I am informed at the Bar that no relief was granted and that the suit was ultimately dismissed on 25-7-1998. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this litigation, Kakanna died and. I am informed at the Bar that no relief was granted and that the suit was ultimately dismissed on 25-7-1998. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this litigation, Kakanna died and. A. IV has been taken out for purposes of bringing Krishna Reddy on record as his L. R. This application has been strongly opposed by the respondent 5 who has inter alia pointed out to this Court the averments made in the suit filed by Krishna Reddy as also the evidence that came on record before the Civil Court and it is contended that Krishna Reddy had in that proceeding contended that he is a relation of kakanna more or less to the effect that he was Kakanna's nephew whereas in the L. R. application the contention raised is that he is the adopted son of Kakanna. Among other things, what is contended is that there are some basic and inherent contradictions with regard to the status that krishna Reddy has ascribed to himself at different points of time and the submission canvassed before me was that on a simple perusal of this material the. A. IV must be dismissed and if. A. IV is dismissed, that the writ petition must also be dismissed. ( 3 ) THIS is not an application that can be decided in isolation and de hors a reference to the evidence and I have pointed out to the learned Advocate who represents respondent 5 that having regard to the incongruous position in which these cases stand by virtue of the abolition of the appellate Authority that in those instances where the proceedings have come back to this Court from the Appellate Authority that in exercise of the Article 226 jurisdiction of this Court, that an appreciation of evidence which is within the scope of the Trial Court or the Appellate Authority is totally ruled out and that consequently, there can be no decision on these contested issues. He insisted on making his submissions which I have listened to patiently and on which it is necessary for this Court to record its observations. The position that emerges is very simple viz. , that the. A. IV is so intrinsically interlinked with the evidence and with the record in this case, that it cannot be decided in isolation. He insisted on making his submissions which I have listened to patiently and on which it is necessary for this Court to record its observations. The position that emerges is very simple viz. , that the. A. IV is so intrinsically interlinked with the evidence and with the record in this case, that it cannot be decided in isolation. Again, though the submission canvassed was that if the material on record before the Court stares one in the face and leads to the irresistible conclusion that Krishna Reddy can never qualify to achieve the status of a legal representative of the deceased Kakanna, that the Court must decide that issue. There is another equally important aspect that cannot be lost sight of, Krishna Reddy was cross-examined though to a limited extent before the Appellate Authority. The civil proceedings are a subsequent development and naturally the statements, evidence etc. , relating to those proceedings could not be put to him when he was cross-examined. As of today, if the application is that the. A. IV should be dismissed on the basis of the inconsistencies or contradictions on record, such a procedure would not be permissible unless Krishna Reddy is confronted with this material and given an opportunity of reconciling it if it is possible. It may be that Krishna Reddy is able to reconcile the situation or explain it and it is equally possible that he may find it impossible to do so but the law requires that this procedure cannot be dispensed with as otherwise he will stand condemned without the opportunity of being able to explain his position. That exercise can only be done by the Tribunal and not by this Court and it is for this reason that the proceeding will have to be sent back to the Tribunal, for 'the completion of the evidence and a fresh decision. ( 4 ) IT was vehemently argued that on the basis of whatever material is on record, this Court can decide the. A. IV and if. A. IV is decided and it is held that Krishna Reddy cannot be brought on record as the L. R. of the original petitioner, then undoubtedly it would be the end of the litigation. I have already indicated as to why a decision on. A. IV as the record stands would be premature and why this cannot be done at this stage. I have already indicated as to why a decision on. A. IV as the record stands would be premature and why this cannot be done at this stage. Also, it is very clear that once the Appellate authority has allowed the reception of additional evidence that this procedure must be completed which is a legal necessity. ( 5 ) AN inevitable grievance has been raised on behalf of respondent 5 that because of this procedural requirement that the Tribunal's well considered order will be set aside on the application of a party who may or may not be held to be entitled to prosecute this case. That position is not very correct because the petitioner before the Court and the appellant was kakanna and it is only an extension of that proceeding which has gone on principally because krishna Reddy was representing him. I do concede that on the death of Kakanna, that the position on record does get altered but again, it needs to be emphasised that just as the respondent 5 contends that Krishna Reddy has no locus standi, it is equally true that he may succeed in establishing his right to continue with the proceeding in which case any orders passed by this Court on the basis of the existing record would be equally unfair and unjust to him. In situations such as this, the Court is required to find solutions to the problem that has arisen partially due to the length of the litigation and I do propose to issue suitable directions in order to ensure that there is no prejudice or advantage to either of the parties. ( 6 ) THE impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision but the Tribunal shall first direct the parties to complete the recording of evidence. If respondent 5 desires to further cross-examine Krishna Reddy, that shall be permitted and after the evidence is completed, the Tribunal shall first decide the application for bringing on record the L. R. of deceased Kakanna. It is only if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that Krishna reddy can lawfully be brought on record as the L. R. that the Tribunal will then proceed to hear the case on merits. It is only if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that Krishna reddy can lawfully be brought on record as the L. R. that the Tribunal will then proceed to hear the case on merits. Failing this, the Tribunal, in the event of the L. R. application of Krishna reddy standing rejected, the Tribunal shall then proceed to dismiss the application on the ground that nothing survives in the case and there shall be no necessity to go into any detailed evaluation or consideration of the merits of the case. Again, it is only if the L. R. application succeeds that the Tribunal shall then record a fresh decision on merits. ( 7 ) THE record in question to be returned to the Tribunal forthwith. The parties are represented before me and they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1-6-1999 at 11 a. m. and if the tribunal is either busy or not working on that day, some other date shall be given. This is an old litigation and the Tribunal shall ensure to take it up on an expeditious basis and dispose it off. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in the meanwhile and if any interim orders are necessary, liberty to apply to the Tribunal for the same. The writ petition succeeds to this limited extent. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The learned government Advocate has been heard on merits on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Since as earlier indicated by me, the learned Advocates appearing in the case have placed reliance on several of the pleadings such as the applications filed in the course of the proceedings and the evidence recorded etc. , the office of this Court is directed to transmit the entire record to the tribunal which includes the record of the Appellate Authority and the record of this Court.