JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--We have heard the Appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate on merits. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.8.1999 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 24958 of 1992. The Appellant's learned Advocate has submitted that on 1.8.1999 the Petitioner before the Court passed away and that this fact was not known to the Petitioner's learned Advocate as a result of which when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the Court has heard the case and passed an order effectively against a dead person. Learned Advocate submitted that there is a well known maxim that a Court cannot pass an order against a dead person and that on this ground alone the order of the learned Single Judge will have to be set aside. What we are taking cognizance of is that the maxim in question cannot be applied in abstract or in a vacuum. The Courts have carved out that principle because on a death occurring new parties come into the picture, sometimes rights are created and rights are extinguished and taking into account all of this the practice that is prevalent and which has obtained legal sanction is that the legal representatives be brought on record and the proceedings be then disposed of according to law. There is a very valid reason for this in so far as the nature of the proceeding may considerably change complexion. There may be situations in which the litigation is such that it may not at all survive on a death taking place. There are other situations in which the rights may get drastically altered and may be conferred on new persons and in all these situations the Courts follow the rule of abundant caution by insisting on the legal representatives being brought on record. There are however a few situations in which this issue becomes wholly and totally academic in so far as the question which the Court will address to itself is as to whether, if the Appellant's legal representatives were to be substituted for the Appellant in the present writ petition, any difference of any type would have occurred. This is not a case in which evidence is to be recorded, this is not a case in which any material or any pleas or statements or anything else is required from the parties. This is not a case in which evidence is to be recorded, this is not a case in which any material or any pleas or statements or anything else is required from the parties. It is only a situation in which legal submissions are to be canvassed on behalf of the Appellant. We also take note of the fact that if a death has taken place and the learned Advocate representing the deceased points out that he no longer has authority to appear and argue that as of necessity a notice would have to be given to the legal representatives. That has not happened in this case because the Petitioner's learned Advocate has advanced his submissions on merits. In sum and substance therefore, no prejudice of any type has been caused to the original Petitioner and we further note that this is not a contested litigation but a situation in which only the surplus holding of the Petitioner was to be determined. 2. This case had gone through two remands and the Land Tribunal has based its decision/finding on the basis of the record. We find no prejudice whatsoever has been caused and consequently, no interference is warranted on the basis of this technical objection. 3. Mr. Hiremath, learned Counsel who represents the Appellant then submitted that this is a case in which the Appellant desired to lead evidence before the tribunal for purposes of establishing that he was not a surplus holder. The submission is that one more opportunity be afforded to the Appellant to which we have pointed out to the learned Counsel that this case has been remanded not once but twice and that even on the last occasion the Appellant did not lead any evidence but only submitted written arguments. It would therefore have to be presumed that the Appellant did not have any further material beyond what was pointed out in the written submissions. 4. We take special note of the fact that when an argument is advanced that a case be remanded for further evidence, it is necessary for the party to first indicate to this Court as to what precisely is the evidence that the party desires to lead. This Court will examine the question as to whether this evidence was available on an earlier occasion. This Court will examine the question as to whether this evidence was available on an earlier occasion. The question as to why it was not produced or led, the question as to whether it appears to be an after thought or the result of some fabrication and above all, the Court will assess as to whether if that evidence is led, it would materially alter the earlier decision. It is condition precedent therefore that the material that has allegedly gone by default is produced before the superior Court and if the superior Court is satisfied that it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, then alone would a remand be competent. 5. In this case even before the learned Single Judge, nothing was produced in order to satisfy the aforesaid requirements of law. Even at the appellate stage, no further material of any type has been adduced and merely because a contention is raised that additional evidence is required, we cannot allow a third remand in a ceiling case where the Appellant is still in possession of the lands. This Court takes note of the fact that there is such a thing as the doctrine of finality and furthermore, that even on the last occasion when the Appellant was given a second chance that absolutely no evidence was led and written submissions were filed. Viewing the case from any angle, this is not a fit case which requires any interference with. The appeal accordingly fails on merits and stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, to stand vacated.