BINOD KUMAR ROY, S. K. JAIN, JJ. ( 1 ) WITH consent of the parties this writ petition is being disposed of on merits at its admission stage. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the recovery order dated May 28, 1993. Issued by respondent No. 2 the Additional Collector (Fandr), Kanpur (as contained in Annexure-3), the attachment order dated October 30. 1993. Issued by respondent No. 2 (as contained in annexure-4) and the sale proclamation order dated December 31. 1993. Issued by respondent no. 3 (as contained in Annexure-5) respectively. ( 2 ) SRI Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted a solitary point for our consideration, namely, that the recovery proceedings were Initiated against Sri Har prasad Jaiswal, the father of the petitioner, despite the fact that he had died on May 4. 1976, which is evident from the death certificate, a X-rox copy of which is Annexure-2 which fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit and consequently, the proceedings are nullify in the eyes of law. ( 3 ) SRI P. K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing in opposition to the prayers made by the petitioner, contended that from the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that a notice was Issued to the father of the petitioner when he was alive though it is a fact that he had died subsequently but in view of the fact that having Inherited the Interest of his father and thus the petitioner was/is liable to discharge his liabilities and thus this Court may not exercise its discretionary Jurisdiction in his favour. ( 4 ) SRI Agarwal in reply contended that in any view of the matter after the death of the petitioners father the petitioner has not been substituted nor has proceeding been amended and thus the reliefs prayed for are fit to be granted. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused their pleadings, we are of the view that any proceeding against a dead man should not continue and in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the best course was to substitute the petitioner as well as his brother and/or any other heir and legal representatives of the deceased who had Inherited/succeeded his properties to avoid any future complication on grounds of technicality. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, we dispose of this writ petition with this direction to the respondents that they are required to suitably amend the proceedings in the light of the observations made as above and till then not to proceed further. ( 7 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting, it is clarified that this order shall not be interpreted to mean acceptance of the other grounds raised in the writ petition which were also not pressed before us but it will be open for the petitioner to raise them in the proceedings after its amendment. ( 9 ) THE office is directed to handover a copy of this order to Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel within two weeks for its intimation to and follow up action by the respondents in accordance with law, if they intend to proceed in the matter. .