JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri P.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suneet Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K.M. Garg, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent. 2. An objection has been raised at the very out set regarding maintainability of this second appeal by Sri K.M. Garg on the ground that the appeal was instituted by a dead person. Sri P.P. Srivastava appearing for the defendant-appellant has brought to my notice the relevant dates relating to the present second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit No. 134 of 1989 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month along with 18% interest. The trial Court decreed the suit in part, for recovery of possession and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month with 18% per annum. The defendant-appellant preferred an appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2003 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-2005 by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor. The present second appeal was prepared and affidavit filed in support of the stay application was sworn on 5-7-2005. The appeal was reported on 6-7-2005. It was reported that the limitation of the appeal is up till 3-8-2005. The appeal was presented on 1-8-2005. In the intervening period, when the appeal was reported and it was presented before the Court, within limitation, the appellant died on 17-7-2005. The order sheet dated 4-8-2005 shows that the appeal came up before the Court for the first time on 4-8-2005 and thereafter it was adjourned on a number of dates. It transpires from the record that on 8-8-2005 a substitution application under Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules read with Order XXII Rule 4, C.P.C. was moved. On 22-8-2005, this application came up before the Court. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent accepted the notice and prayed time to file a counter affidavit. Subsequently, another application under Section 151, C.P.C. was filed and the Court directed the application along with accompanying affidavit to be kept on record on 22-8-2005. Another application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. Simultaneously on the same day another application under Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed, to which counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Another application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. Simultaneously on the same day another application under Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed, to which counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Before the appeal was heard on merits, the respective Counsel for the parties were heard at length on the question of maintainability of this appeal. In the circumstances, I proceed to decide the substitution application and also application under Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules read with Section 151, C.P.C. Order XXII C.P.C. deals with the substitution proceeding to be adopted on the death, marriage and insolvency of the parties. 3. Sri K.M. Garg appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has emphatically stated that at the time when the appeal was presented, admittedly, the sole defendant-appellant was dead and since the appeal was presented by a dead person, it is a nullity and no subsequent application for substitution can be entertained. The submission on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent is that the provisions of Order XXII C.P.C. is applicable in a pending proceeding and not in an appeal which was instituted by a person who was already dead, and, therefore, since the appeal is a nullity, the subsequent application also cannot be entertained. A number of decisions has been relied upon by Sri K.M. Garg, M/s. Nevandram Javermal v. Devikabai Haridas Gandhi and others, AlR 1982 Bom, 589 ; Bala Prasad v. Radhey Shiam and another, AIR 1934 All, 25; Chitradhar Gogoi and others v. Lalit Chandra Gogoi and others, A.l.R. 1974 ; Gau 2 (V 61 C 2). ; C. Muttu v. Bharath Match Works, Sivakasi, AIR 1964 Mys, 293 (V 51 C 73) ; The Temple of Shri Shantadurga Calangutcarina, Nanora and others v. Macario Francisco Jose Duarte and another, AIR 1976 Goa, Daman and Diu 54; Cuttack Municipality v. Shvamsundar Behera, AIR 1977 Ori 137 ; Banarasi v. Smt. Savitri Upadhyay and others, 2005 (98) RD. 636 and Smt. Jagrani (Dead) throught Lrs. v. IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi, 2005 (98) RD 636. 4. Sri P.P. Srivastava has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Prempiari and others v. Dukhi and another, A.I.R. 1976 All, 444. 636 and Smt. Jagrani (Dead) throught Lrs. v. IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi, 2005 (98) RD 636. 4. Sri P.P. Srivastava has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Prempiari and others v. Dukhi and another, A.I.R. 1976 All, 444. It is argued on behalf of the deceased-appellant that no doubt when an appeal is filed against a dead person, it is a still-born appeal and the provisions of Order XXII C.P.C. would not apply, but in the event, an application is made for substituting the legal heirs of the deceased who died prior to the institution of the appeal, the appeal would be taken to have been filed on the date of the application and if the appeal is time barred and the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is invoked for getting the delay condoned, it would be taken that the appeal is filed on the date, limitation is condoned. 5. After going through the aforesaid decisions cited by the respective Counsels for the parties, so far the application under Order XXII C.P.C. is concerned, it is correct to say that no substitution can be permitted in a case where there was sole defendant or the appellant and he was dead on the date of institution of the appeal, but where there are more defendants than one, and one of them was dead. When the suit was filed or the appeal was presented, the Courts have held that the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant can be brought on record subject to the question of limitation. If there would have been a number of appellants then the suit was very much maintainable at the instance of the other appellants and application for substitution under Order XXII Rule 4, C.P.C can very well be entertained. In the case of Bala Prasad (supra) this High Court had clearly held that where a suit is filed against the several defendants, one of whom was dead at that time of institution, the suit cannot be considered to have been instituted against a dead person and it cannot be said that it is not a validly instituted suit. In such an event, the Court can exercise all the powers of Order XXII Rule 4, C.P.C. In the present case, however, the situation is altogether different, the appeal was presented by a dead person. In such an event, the Court can exercise all the powers of Order XXII Rule 4, C.P.C. In the present case, however, the situation is altogether different, the appeal was presented by a dead person. Admittedly the appellant Abdul Sattar was not alive on 1-8-2005. He was not alive at the relevant time, therefore, the appeal can very well be said to be a nullity and no aid can be taken under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 or Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The decisions cited on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent so far the provisions of Civil Procedure Code is concerned, appears to be correct law and therefore I come to a conclusion that the application for substitution under Order XXII or Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot be allowed. The application for substitution is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provides a remedy in such an extra ordinary circumstances. Chapter X of the High Court Rules deals with the appeal or application by or against the legal representatives, assignee etc. Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules is quoted below : “3. Appointment of legal representative of deceased party after the filing of appeal.—Where after a memorandum of appeal has been presented to the Court, any appellant or any party interested in the maintenance of an objection filed under Rule 22 of Order XLI of the Code, is informed that any person who is arrayed as a party in such appeal or objection had died before the memorandum of appeal was presented but after the decree or order appealed from was passed, he may subject to the law of limitation, make an application for an order that the memorandum of appeal be amended by substituting for the person who is dead, his legal representative. The application shall state such facts as may be necessary to support it and shall be accompanied by an affidavit.” 7. A careful reading of this Rule make it evident that the High Court Rules have taken care of a contingency where the sole appellant or the respondent died before the memorandum of appeal was presented but was alive on the date when the decree or order appealed was passed. The memorandum of appeal can be permitted to be amended by substituting the person who is dead and his legal representatives can very well be brought on record. The memorandum of appeal can be permitted to be amended by substituting the person who is dead and his legal representatives can very well be brought on record. In the instant case, two applications under Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules supported by an affidavit has been brought on record seeking permission to array the legal representatives of the deceased-appellant Abdul Sattar as the appellant Nos. 1/1 to 1/7. The judgment and decree passed in the first appeal is 19-4-2005. The certified copy of the decree appended with the appeal shows that it was prepared on 3-5-2005 and the appellant died subsequent to the passing of the judgment and preparation of the decree on 17-7-2005. In fact the appeal was also reported at the time when the appellant was alive and, therefore, I come to a conclusion that this is a fit case where the benefit of Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules is available to the present appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has cited a Division Bench decision of this Court, Banke Bihari Lal and another v. Mahadeo Prasad, AlR 1953 All 97, on the question of condonation of delay and burden of proof for grant of relief of condonation of delay. 8. I have carefully examined the counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in support and against the delay condonation application. It is apparent that though the appeal was reported and it was lying with the Counsel for the appellant but it was not within his knowledge that the sole appellant is dead. Subsequently an application for substitution as well as for bringing on record the legal representatives under the provisions of High Court Rules along with delay condonation application was filed. I find that the cause shown is sufficient and thus the delay in filing the application is fit to be condoned. The application under Chapter X Rule 3 of the High Court Rules is allowed. Counsel for the appellant is permitted to bring on record the heirs of the appellant within a period of three weeks from today. Office is directed to summon the trial Court record at the cost of the appellant and list this appeal before the appropriate Court for admission after receipt of the record. 9. Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. Decided Accordingly. ———