JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in C.A. No. 58 of 1994, whereby the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (2), Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 154 of 1990 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge has been affirmed. Hence the present appeal by the appellants in which application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC (being CMP (M) No. 44 of 2001) for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Pohlo Ram, respondent No. 6 and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (being CMP (M) No. 45 of 2001) for condonation of delay in filing the application i.e. CMP (M) No. 44/2001, have also been filed. 2. I have herd the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 3. It is not in dispute that Pohlo Ram, deceased, was defendant No. 18 before the trial Court and decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against all the defendants-appellants including said Pohlo Ram. Said Pohlo Ram was appellant No. 22 before the lower appellate Court and had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and the appeal was dismissed. Thus, Pohlo Ram was an effective and necessary party to the Us. It is also not in spute that said Pohlo Ram had died on 12.8.1996 i.e. during the pendency of the first appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur but his legal representatives were not brought on record and the lower appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree on merits as if said Pohlo Ram was alive. 4. 4. In the given circumstances of the case, one of the questions which arises for determination is as to the effect of death of Pohlo Ram and not bringing on record his legal representatives in the appeal before the lower appellate Court or in other words, the questions now involved in the matter are as follows: (i) Whether the appeal before the lower appellate Court had abated, if so the effect and extent of the abatement; (ii) Whether the abatement should be set aside or not; and (iii) Whether the legal representatives of the deceased may be allowed to be brought on record or not? 5. It is well settled that as and when the questions, as aforesaid, arise in relation to a suit or appeal, at the first instance, these are to be decided by the Court in which the suit or appeal was pending at the time of the death of the party and the abatement, if any, took place. (See Sher Singh and others v. Raghu Ram and others (1981 Shim. L.C. 25) and Tulsi Ram and others v. Smt. Krishni Devi and others, 2000 (2) Shim. L.C. 172. 6. In view of the above settled position in law, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the judgment and decree and to remand the appeal. 7. As a result, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1994 is remanded to the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, who shall, after restoring the appeal to its original number and date, permit the appellant-defendants to take such steps as they like in the matter and permit the opposite party to take such objections thereto as they may deem fit and proper and thereafter take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. 8. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above order and parties are left to bear their own costs. 9. Since the matter has become very old, therefore, the lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within six months. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the lower appellate court on 20.8.2001. Appeal disposed of. -