All the misc cases arose out of Second Appeal No. 9 of 1982 having its chequered history. The Original Suit 12 of 1976 was filed by 14 plaintiffs, the successor in interest of one Thokchom Himaloi Singh (shortly Himaloi) against sole defendant Mutum Leiren Singh on 11.3.1976. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court, sole defendant died and his legal representatives, 10 in number had been substituted vide order dated 20.11.1978. 2. Suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession by evicting the defendant from immovable property. The suit was decreed on 1.4.1981. The legal representatives of sole defendant preferred first appeal in Civil Appeal No.8 of 1981 and the District Judge allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 31.5.1982, against which the second appeal has been preferred by the 12 plaintiffs making 2 plaintiffs as proforma respondents on 20.9.1982. 3. During the pendency of this second appeal the appellant No.7 died on 6.2.94 for which a petition under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC has been filed by this legal representatives in Civil Misc No.81 of 1996 along with a condonation petition in Misc No.80 of 1996 on 26.11.1996. (a) Respondent No. 1 died on 19.2.1996 for which the appellants filed petition seeking substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC in Civil Misc 79 of 1996 on 26.11.1996 along with condonation petition in Civil Misc 78 of 1996. (b) The proforma respondent No. 12 died on 27.11.96 and his legal heirs filed petition seeking substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 21.11.2000 in Civil Misc 64 of 2000 along with condonation petition in Civil Misc 62 of 2000. 4. The appellants also filed a petition in Civil Misc 63 of 2000 on 21.12.2000 informing the death of appellant No. 10 (died on 8.10.99) with further intimation that the said appellant No. 10 died unmarried/issueless. 5. The respondent No.2 filed a petition on 29.8.1999 in Civil Misc 47 (A) of 1999 seeking for recording the abatement of the appeal. 6. The appellants also filed a petition in Civil Misc 63 of 2000 on 21.12.2000 informing the death of appellant No. 10 (died on 8.10.99) with further intimation that the said appellant No. 10 died unmarried/issueless. 5. The respondent No.2 filed a petition on 29.8.1999 in Civil Misc 47 (A) of 1999 seeking for recording the abatement of the appeal. 6. Since all the civil misc petitions pertain to sole question to decide as to whether the second appeal stood abated due to the death of appellant No.7 (died on 6.2.94) due to death of respondent No. 1 (died on 19.2.1996), due to death of proforma respondent No. 12 (died on 27.11.96) and due to death of appellant No.10 (died on 8.10.99) and also whether the legal representatives of those dead appellant/respondent could be allowed to be added as party as prayed for and, as such, for convenience sake all these petitions are taken together, as agreed by the parties, for analogous hearing and disposal by the common order. 7. Under afore mentioned back drop, the provisions and applicability of related rules under Order 22 CPC are to be the examined/appreciated. A combined reading of Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Order 22 CPC visualise that in the event of death of plaintiff or defendant (hereinafter referred to as party) in any suit appeal or revision (hereinafter referred as proceeding), the proceeding would stand abated unless the right to prosecute/defence survives and the legal representative (s) is/are substituted within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. 8. But a question arises before the Court as to whether death of one or other of the numerous already substituted legal representatives (LRs) would result in abatement of the proceeding in the event of non substitution of the heirs of those dead LRs to the proceeding or the proceeding would continue at the instant of the surviving LR (s) of the original party already on record and also as to whether the heirs of those dead LR (s) could be permitted to be either substituted or be added as a party simpliciter to the proceeding. 9. In the present case the sole defendant died during the pendency of the trial and his legal heirs 10 in numbers were lawfully substituted. 9. In the present case the sole defendant died during the pendency of the trial and his legal heirs 10 in numbers were lawfully substituted. Now, during the pendency of the appeal one LR viz respondent No. 1 died having left the remaining 9 LRs of the original defendant alive. In this situation, whether the 9 LRs already on record could represent the interest of the deceased defendant in absence of bringing the legal heirs deceased LR (respondent No. 1) 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the decision in Collector of 24 Parganas vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick reported in AIR 1986 SC 2121. In that decided case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though some of the respondents died during pendency of the appeal, their right appear to have been sufficiently represented by the surviving defendants and having such situation the appeal cannot be abated. Learned counsel for the petitioner having referred another case law in Newanness vs. Shaikh Md reported in AIR 1996 SC 702 submits that death of one defendant would not result the abatement of the suit while the other defendants could represent the heirs of deceased defendant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits on referring a case in Smti Bhonri vs. Shontosh Nath reported in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 180 that the death to a party to a suit when one of the LRs is on record would not cause abatement of the suit. 12. On the contrary, learned senior counsel Mr. Charugopal for the respondents drew my attention to the following case laws : (1) Susanta Kumar Choudhury vs. Birendra Kumar Deb Roy reported in 1996 (II) GLT 385 (1996 (2) GLJ 304), (2) Chitta Ranjan Das vs. Pran Bhallav Das & others reported in 1997 (II) GLT 311 (1997 (2) GLJ 45), and submits that while the judgment/decree is a joint one and not divisible among the decree holders/judgment debtors death of one of the appellants or one of the respondents would result in abatement of the appeal unless the LR of the deceased , appellants/defendants are substituted on record within time prescribed and since in the present case the appellant No.7, appellant No.10, respondent No.l and respondent No. 12 died and their LRs had not been brought on record the appeal stood abated after the lapse of statutory period and no order of abatement need to be passed. It is settled proposition that abatement would take automatically requiring, no formal order to be passed after the lapse of statutory period from the date of death of the party concerned unless right to sue/defend survives and the LRs are brought on record in time. 13. In the present case admittedly legal representatives of the party died and were not brought on record in time. Now, the two questions are to be answered whether due to the death of one or other of the legal representatives of the deceased defendants would result in abatement while other LRs of the deceased defendant have been/are very much on record. The sole defendant died during trial and his 10 LRs were substituted of whom one died during second appeal and the remaining 9 surviving LRs are on record. After the death of sole defendant, his LRs 10 in numbers have been representing the interest of the deceased defendant in a collective manner and, as such, collective representative cannot be culminated due to the death of one or other LRs while surviving LRs on record. The legal e heirs of the deceased LRs may be added or substituted as optional. All the LRs conjointly constituted an unit collectively representing the interest of the deceased defendant and, as such, the death of one or other of the LRs of the deceased defendant would not result in abatement of the suit. However, the legal heirs of the dead LRs have a right to be added as a party during the pendency of the proceeding and, as such, in my considered opinion, due to the death of respondent No. 1, being one of the LRs of the defendant has not resulted the appeal in abatement. 14. Now, I am to examine whether the death of appellant Nos 7 and 10 and proforma respondent No. 12 caused the abatement. Undoubtedly, there are 14 plaintiffs and appellant No.7 was the plaintiff No.7 in the suit. The proforma respondent No. 12 was the plaintiff No.4 in the suit. Appellant No. 10 was the plaintiff No. 12 in the suit. 14A. Undoubtedly, there are 14 plaintiffs and appellant No.7 was the plaintiff No.7 in the suit. The proforma respondent No. 12 was the plaintiff No.4 in the suit. Appellant No. 10 was the plaintiff No. 12 in the suit. 14A. Appellant No. 10 admittedly died bachelor having left no legal heirs in Class I, of course, the other surviving appellants inherited/succeeded the deceased appellant No. 10, and, as such, death of the appellant No. 10 could not result any abatement, as his LRs viz remaining appellants are very much on record. 15. Proforma respondent No. 12 though was plaintiff No.4 did not join in preferring the second appeal though he conjointly filed the suit as co-plaintiff along with other appellants. The right, title, interest as sought for in the suit appears to be indivisible, conjointly inherited from their predecessor in title Himaloi Singh and, as such, the death of pro-respondent No. 12 undoubtedly would abate the appeal in view of the decisions cited by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Charugopal for the respondents. 16. Mr. L. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the surviving appellants have already filed petition seeking substitution of the , legal representatives of deceased proforma respondent No. 12 in Civil Misc 64 of 2000 with condonation petition in Misc 62 of 2000. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a separate petition seeking setting aside of abatement is a legal requirement which is lacking. 17. Correct, there is no separate petition filed by the LR of pro-respondent No. 12 seeking setting aside of abatement, for allowing them to be substituted, but it is a settled proposition of law that a composite petition for allowing the substitution of LR after setting aside the abatement is permissible if otherwise facts and circumstances appear to be convincing. Mr. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, having referred to the condonation petition submits that the legal representatives of the deceased proforma respondent No. 12 (one of the plaintiffs) are unsophisticated, illiterates, rustic village people having no awareness of minimum standard. They even did not know the pendency of the appeal nor they were aware of the involvement of their father, proforma respondent No. 12, in the present appeal. They even did not know the pendency of the appeal nor they were aware of the involvement of their father, proforma respondent No. 12, in the present appeal. It is correct that in catena of decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court already directed that in considering the condonation petition the Courts of law should take into consideration the poverty, illiteracy, ignorance of fact, sense of unawareness of legal nicety being faced/suffered by the rustic village people. There is no affidavit-in-opposition filed controverting the aforesaid pleas taken by the petitioners. Moreover, it reveals from the record that the plaintiff No.4 was reluctant to file appeal jointly with the appellants for which he was made proforma respondent No. 12. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position discussed and legal position f analysed, I am of the considered opinion to hold that it is a fit case to condone the delay allowing the LRs of pro-respondent No. 12 (plaintiff No .4) to be substituted as LR of pro-respondent No. 12 and also I am holding that the appeal is not abated due to the death of respondent no. 1 yet since the name of the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 have been disclosed, they may be added as a party respondent. 19. Therefore, the abatement of appeals so far pro-respondent No. 12 is concerned is set aside allowing his legal representatives, name of which stand disclosed in the Misc Petition No. 64 of 2000 be substituted. 20. In the result, all the misc petitions filed in connection with Second Appeal No. 9 of 1982 are disposed of as indicated above with no order as to costs.