JUDGMENT - M.B. VISHWANATH, PRESIDENT:---This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Legal Representative (LR) of the first defendant borrower (1st defendant borrower is since deceased) challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Bangalore, on 8-12-2000 allowing the IAs 2 to 4 and bringing the LRs of the deceased first defendant on record. The applications were filed for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement and to bring the LRs of the deceased first defendant on record. As I have already stated these IAs were allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T. Bangalore. 2. The deceased first defendant had left behind him two sons who were the L.Rs. These two sons were sought to be brought on record under the L.R. application. It should be mentioned here clearly that one of the L.Rs. had already been impleaded in the OA as defendant No. 3 in his capacity as one of the borrowers. 3. The D.R.T. was concerned with only the appellant here brought on record as another LR. 4. The first respondent Bank filed OA-542/1997 before the D.R.T., Bangalore against the deceased first defendant and four other defendants claiming about Rs. 98 lakhs odd. 5. The OA was filed before the D.R.T. on 10-1-1997. The Bank filed the IAs on 26-11-1998. 6. The first defendant died on 29-5-1995. 7. It is true that the first defendant was deceased even before filing of the OA by the Bank. The Bank has given adequate reasons for not filing the LR application in time. The learned PO has accepted the reasons given by the Bank. 8. It is stoutly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant LR that the OA filed against the dead person was a nullity. This position in law is not universal. It is subject to circumstances and facts of each case. 9. Despite best efforts the Bank was not aware that the first defendant was dead at the time of filing the OA. Another LR had already been impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the OA. This person did not bring it to the notice of the Bank or the Tribunal that his father was dead. 10. As an eminent English Judge has observed, "technicalities are there to help the dispensation of justice and not to clog the wheels of justice." 11. Another LR had already been impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the OA. This person did not bring it to the notice of the Bank or the Tribunal that his father was dead. 10. As an eminent English Judge has observed, "technicalities are there to help the dispensation of justice and not to clog the wheels of justice." 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant LR relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993(4) S.C. Cases Page 41 (Karuppaswamy others v. C. Ramamurthy)1. This authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court deals with two situations- (i) Where the party has failed to show that the suit was filed against a dead person by mistake, (ii) It also deals with the situation where it is proved to the satisfaction that the mistake in impleading a dead person was made by the party (plaintiff) in good faith. 12. This authority, in my opinion, helps the Bank and not the appellant. The Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that a suit against a dead person can be regularised under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Limitation Act if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that mistake in impleading a dead person was made by the plaintiff in good faith. The Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the Court's satisfaction alone breathes life in the suit. 13. There is enough material on record to show that the impleading of a dead person (1st defendant) by the Bank was made in good faith. The authority relied on by the appellant fits like a glove to the facts of the case. 14. Except the first defendant who was dead on the date of the OA filed by the Bank the other defendants were brought on record. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to hold in A.I.R. 1972 Delhi 253, (Smt. Kailash Kapoor v. Naresh Chandra Misra)2, that where all the known legal representatives have been brought on record, the action cannot be said to abate if subsequently it comes to be known that there were some more legal representatives who were not brought on record for want of knowledge about them. 15. The Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. page 1 (Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by Lrs. 15. The Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. page 1 (Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by Lrs. v. Union of India)3, that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted and not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties. 16. The liability against the borrowers must have swelled to more than a Crore as on date. No wonder that one of the Lrs. of deceased 1st defendant tries to somehow escape the liability. 17. For the aforesaid reasons the order passed by the learned PO of D.R.T. is unexceptionable. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. -----