Judgment PRITAM PAL, J. 1. Without going into the details, it is suffice to say that plaintiffappellants suit for possession of site A-B-C-D, as detailed in the heading of the plaint, was decreed against Harbans Singh, applicant-defendantrespondent no.1 vide judgment and decree dated 9.1.1978. Thereafter, the appeal filed by defendant-respondent No.1 was accepted and accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed vide impugned judgment/decree dated 9.12.1980. Ultimately, the present Regular second appeal No.711 of 1981 was filed in this Court by the plaintiff-appellants. 2. During the pendency of this aforesaid appeal, Civil Misc. Application bearing No.9607-C of 2004 under Order 22 Rule 3 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") was filed for dismissing the above mentioned Regular Second Appeal No.711 of 1981 as having abated with the specific plea that since plaintiff-appellant no.1, namely, Lachhman Singh, had died about 19 years ago on 5.7.1985, i. e. , before coming into force the relevant amendment of 1992 in the Code and his LRs have not been brought on record and that the interest of all the appellants is common and not severable. Therefore, the aforesaid r. S. A. filed by the plaintiff-appellants deserves to be dismissed in toto. Upon notice of this application, learned counsel for the appellants/non-applicants appeared and requested for time for filing reply to the aforesaid application. Ultimately, no reply was filed. During the course of arguments on the aforesaid application, learned counsel for the appellants/non-applicants has fairly admitted the factual and legal position put-forth in the aforesaid application filed by the applicant-respondent, but he vehemently argued that here, in the instant case, the estate of lachhman Singh, plaintiff-appellant No.1 is represented by other surviving appellants. He then also submitted that when surviving appellants are already there on record, the appeal does not abate. In support of his this contention, learned counsel has relied upon Smt. Gema Coutinho rodrigues Vs. Bricio Francisc Pareira and others AIR 1994 supreme court 1199. 3. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that here in the instant case, subsequently all the other three appellants had also expired during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. However, they died after 1992 i. e. , after coming into force the relevant amendment in the Code. Hence, the same is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the fate of this appeal. 4. However, they died after 1992 i. e. , after coming into force the relevant amendment in the Code. Hence, the same is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the fate of this appeal. 4. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant-respondent is that since the L. Rs of deceased Lachhman singh, who had died in the year 1985, have not been brought on record nor any reply to the aforesaid application has been filed, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as having abated qua plaintiff-appellant No.1. At the same time, it was further submitted that in case of a joint and inseverable decree, if the appeal abated against one or the other, the same cannot be proceeded with further for or against the remaining parties as well. In support of his aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the following judgments :- i ). N. K. Khosla V. Rajlakshmi (dead) and Ors. J. T.2006 (3) SC 200. ii ). Jai Ram (deceased) son of Attra and others vs. Jagat Ram alias Mangat Ram and others. AIR 1991 Pandh 203. iii ). Jawala Singh (deceased) and others Vs. Harnam Singh and others.1993 PLJ 83 and iv ). Rameshwar Prasad and others Vs. Shambehari lal Jagannath and another air 1963 SC 1901 after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent. As stated above, the factual and legal position in this case is not denied by either of the parties. So, the only point, which remains to be examined is as to whether the other surviving plaintiff-appellants substantially represented the deceased Lachhman Singh as ruled in smt. Gema Coutinho Rodriguess case (supra)? as mentioned above, the applicant-respondent No.1 has categorically stated in his application that the LRs of deceased lachhman singh have not been brought on record within time. Against this, the remaining plaintiff-appellants have not filed any reply meaning thereby that they have not denied that Lachhman Singh had not left behind his L. Rs who represent his estate. A perusal of the interim orders passed in this appeal shows that many opportunities were sought by the plaintiffappellants for filing reply, but ultimately they failed to do so for the reasons best known to them. A perusal of the interim orders passed in this appeal shows that many opportunities were sought by the plaintiffappellants for filing reply, but ultimately they failed to do so for the reasons best known to them. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent stated at the bar that two sons, two daughters and the widow of Lachhman Singh (deceased) are alive till date. Faced with this situation, it cannot be said that the remaining surviving plaintiff-appellants are representing the estate of deceased lachhman Singh, as argued by learned counsel for the non-applicants. In this view of the matter, there is none in the array of plaintiff-appellants who could be said to have substantially represented deceased lachhman Singh. 5 Further, here in the instant case, the plaintiff-appellants had derived their title jointly on the basis of the sale-deed Ex. P/1 and as such they have got their common interest , which is not separable. In this view of my foregoing discussion, the instant application is allowed and consequently, the appeal stands abated in its entirety. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.