JUDGMENT M.M.S. Bedi, J.:-Counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the respondents agreed that the rights of applicant- Harmohan Singh Paul who claims himself to be the only legal representative of the appellant Basant Kaur need to be determined before the final adjudication of main appeal. It is averred in the application that the appellant Basant Kaur w/o Ran Singh died on September 19, 2001 during the pendency of the appeal, leaving behind the following natural heirs, namely, i) Manmohan Singh, son ii) Sukhdial Singh, son iii) Jagdev Singh, son and iv) Harminder Kaur, daughter. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to the Will of Dr. Ran Singh. By virtue of the said Will, he had bequeathed House No.322, Sector 9 D, Chandigarh upon Sukhdial Singh, his son and Harminder Kaur Sandhu, his daughter, besides bequeathing life interest in favour of Basant Kaur. Sukhdial Singh, Harminder Kaur and Basant Kaur entered into an agreement of sale dated February 12, 1993 with applicant-Harmohan Singh Paul for Rs.27 lacs and received Rs.5 lacs as earnest money, which was paid to all the above said three persons by way of bank drafts. It is asserted that the right to sue survives inasmuch as the question of validity of the Will of Dr. Ran Singh is still open. 2. The applicant-Harmohan Singh Paul is the assignee of the beneficiaries of the Will and he as such claims to have a right to the property. If the probate finally succeeds, he will be liable for payment of balance amount and would be entitled to the house in question. As such the applicant claims to be the sole legal representative within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and to be entitled to carry on the litigation, as well as, to pursue the instant L.P.A. The estate of Basant Kaur in a way devolves upon the applicant by way of agreement of sale which entitles him to claim the property in dispute for his relief under the agreement. He has prayed for being impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased/appellant, as the sole legal representative of Basant Kaur. 3. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. He has prayed for being impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased/appellant, as the sole legal representative of Basant Kaur. 3. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. Although no formal reply has been filed to the application but the application for appointment of the legal representative of Basant Kaur has been seriously opposed by Mr.Manmohan Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 5 i.e. Manmohan Singh Grewal and Jagdev Singh Grewal on the following grounds:- i) The application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is not maintainable as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in an appeal arising out of probate petition decided by a Single Bench of this Court; ii) In the probate proceedings, the present appeal is not maintainable, as the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925, (for short ‘the Act’) are applicable and as per Section 211 of the Act, the executor of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes as the property of the deceased person vests in him. In the present case the executor had filed the probate proceedings but after the finalisation of the said proceedings he had opted not to file an appeal whereas only one of the heirs of the deceased has opted to file the present appeal. After the death of the appellant, only the executor is entitled to persue the appeal, otherwise the appeal would abate. iii) The agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the beneficiaries under the Will in favour of applicant will not confer any right, title or interest for the reason that it is only the executor of the Will who has the power and authority to dispose of the property of the deceased as under Section 307 of the Act he is the only legal representative of the deceased for all purposes. 4. Sh.R.K. Battas, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure arc applicable to the proceedings of appeal in a probate in view of the fact that Section 268 of the Act provides that proceedings before District Judge regarding grant and revocation of probates are to be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. Sh.R.K. Battas, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure arc applicable to the proceedings of appeal in a probate in view of the fact that Section 268 of the Act provides that proceedings before District Judge regarding grant and revocation of probates are to be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. If provisions of Section 295 of the Act describes a procedure in contentious cases, a reading of Sections 268 and 295 of the Act would indicate that the proceedings of probate are regulated by Code of Civil Procedure. As per Section 300 of the Act, the High Court has a concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in exercise of all the powers conferred upon the District Judge. He argued that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, if applicable to the probate proceedings, the same will also be applicable in the appellate proceedings arising out of an order passed by a Single Bench while deciding a probate matter. He also argued that the appellant has an interest in the property in dispute as the right of Basant Kaur stand transferred to the applicant after the execution of the sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of the applicant. The applicant will be the ultimate beneficiary of the property. As such it is submitted that the presence of the applicant will be necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. He placed reliance on Mt. Sheopati Kuer Vs. Ramakant Dikshit and others, AIR (34) 1947 Patna 434- to contend that a person who is entitled to succession on the death of a person claiming interest in the estate of a deceased would be entitled to a right under Section 283 (1) (C) of the Act. He also placed reliance on Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur Vs. Rajeswar Prasad Bhakat and others, AIR 1931 Privy Council 162 wherein it was held that the course of adding proforma parties should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He also placed reliance on Subramania Pillai Vs. Rajeswar Prasad Bhakat and others, AIR 1931 Privy Council 162 wherein it was held that the course of adding proforma parties should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He also placed reliance on Subramania Pillai Vs. Masterly, AIR 1976 Madras 303 wherein in context to the definition of “legal representative” as given in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held by a Division Bench that it is not always a legal requisite that, all the heirs should inevitably figure as legal representatives. According to learned counsel, the procedural law requiring representation will stand satisfied, if there is substantial representation in the sense that all that could be done was done by someone interested in the issue in the suit. It was argued that since the applicant has got interest in the property of the deceased being the potential purchaser of the property from the beneficiaries of the Will he is required to be impleaded as a party. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the respondents. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the executor-respondent No.6, has submitted that he has got no objection in case the applicant is ordered to be impleaded as legal representative. The application has also not seriously been opposed by the other respondents. We have carefully considered the contentions of the counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the respondents­Mr. Manmohan Singh. MAINTAINABILITY OF LETTERS PATENT APPEAL 6. Since the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Basant Kaur, deceased has been seriously contested by counsel for the respondents while opposing the application for impleadment of legal representatives of appellant, it would be necessary to adjudicate upon this issue because the adjudication of the application is possible only if the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned order passed by the Single Bench is held as maintainable. In our considered view the High Court and District Judge, under the Act have the authority and jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration. Section 295 of the Act leaves no ambiguity in the matter that the proceedings of probate are similar to those in a regular suit regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure in contentious cases. In our considered view the High Court and District Judge, under the Act have the authority and jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration. Section 295 of the Act leaves no ambiguity in the matter that the proceedings of probate are similar to those in a regular suit regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure in contentious cases. The powers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in the matters of probate are in the nature of concurrent jurisdiction with a District Judge, as per Section 300 of the Act. There is thus no ambiguity from the reading of the Act that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are applicable to the proceedings of probate before the District Judge as well as before the High Court, as these proceedings are in the nature of original proceedings. So far as the contention of Sh. Manmohan Singh, learned Senior counsel in the matters of appeal is concerned, Section 299 of the Act provides that appeal would lie to the High Court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals. It would be pertinent to mention that there is no procedure of appeal prescribed under the Act against an order passed in probate proceedings by the High Court while exercising original jurisdiction. It is settled principle of law that letters patent is not an enactment, but a charter of the High Court. Clause X of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court at Judicature at Lahore which are applicable to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and reads as follows:- “10. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court.” In Subal Paul Vs. Malina Paul, AIR 2003 SC 1928 a question cropped up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal in respect of an appeal heard by a Single Bench of a High Court from the order of District Judge in an appeal under Section 299 of the Act. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 299 conferred a right of appeal which was not governed by Section 104 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was observed that Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not bar any further appeal if the same was provided for under any other Act for the time being in force. 7. The matter regarding the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a Single bench permitting the executor of a Will who had distributed the estate of the deceased in his possession in accordance with the terms of the Will (during the pendency of the probate proceedings) to the heirs of the deceased was held to be maintainable by a Division Bench under Clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal of this Court in Balbir Singh Wasu Vs. Lakhbir Singh Wasu, 1993 PLJ 720. The relevant observations of the Division Bench of this Court in reference to the provisions of Clause X of the Letters Patent Rules reads as follows:- “7. This clause came up for interpretation before a Full Bench of this Court in M/s I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. M/s Bhatia Brothers and others, 1979 Punjab Law Journal 181. The Full Bench was of the view that against a stay order which involves no determination of any right or liability which may ultimately affect the merits of the controversy, no appeal lies under Clause X of the Letters Patent. 8. This clause subsequently came up for interpretation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that where a trial Judge decides a controversy which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of the Letters patent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that where a trial Judge decides a controversy which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of the Letters patent. Every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. We are bound by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court which has defined the word ‘judgment’ in Clause X of the Letters Patent. 9. In the instant case, the proceedings for grant of probate are original proceedings. The order of the learned Single Judge permitting the Executor of the Will to distribute the cash amount in his possession in accordance with the terms of the Will does not affect valuable rights. The order has a vital effect on the rights of the parties. It is not merely a stay order of the nature which was subject matter of the Full Bench decision of this Court but decides matters of moment. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court would not apply to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the instant case is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents does not have any substance and an appeal lies against the impugned order.” The provisions of the Act do not bar the exercise of the power of the High Court granted under Letters Patent, against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The said right cannot be excluded unless and until there is a specific statutory enactment under the Act to exclude an appeal under the Letters Patent. The right of appeal is a substantive right. In Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar, 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 552 (SC), the question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal was decided with regard to the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which contained a non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal in respect of an award would lie to the High Court. It was held that the provisions of Clause X of Letters Patent was not barred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that Letters Patent is not an enactment but a charter of the High Court and that a non-obstante clause as contained in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not cover the charter of the High Court. The non-obstante clause had to be confined to the choice of forum, rather than to the right of appeal. Thus, when the Letters Patent Rules grant to the High Court the power of appeal against a judgment of a Single Bench, the right to entertain the appeal would not get excluded, unless the concerned statutory enactment excludes an appeal under the Letters Patent Rules. We have also taken into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Banti Devi and others, [2005(4) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 202] : 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 395, wherein taking into consideration the provisions of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure incorporated w.e.f. July 1, 2002 vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 and following tbe judgment of seven Judges Full Bench in Balbir Kaur Vs. Bhim Sein, [2005(3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 275] : 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 447 (P&B) and P.S. Sathappan (dead) by LRs Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and others, AIR 2004 SC 5152, it was held that a Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable against an appellate order of High Court. 8. While holding the maintainability of the appeal reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s Hoosein Kasam Dada (I) Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 221 wherein it was held that right of appeal is a vested right and cannot be taken away, except by an express enactment or intendment. In this regard, reference can also be made to a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Garikapati Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540, wherein it was held that the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right, which can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment. 9. N. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540, wherein it was held that the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right, which can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment. 9. On the basis of the above said judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed in the present case which is not an appellate order of the High Court, but is an order passed by the High Court while exercising its original jurisdiction and, as such, the first appeal against the said order is not barred. We, therefore, do not find force in the contention of Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned Senior counsel that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. It is thus, held that instant first appeal is maintainable under Claude X of the Letters Patent against the order passed by Single Bench in probate proceedings. REGARDING APPLICABILITY (OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 10. The contention of Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned Senior counsel regarding the non-applicability of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in an appeal preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Rules is absolutely without any force and is liable to be rejected out-rightly in view of the specific provision in this context in Rule 27 of the Letters Patent Rules (contained in Volume 5 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court), wherein it is specifically provided that in all Civil matters the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable. Rule 27 reads as under:­ “27. Rule 27 reads as under:­ “27. Regulation of proceedings:­ And we do further ordain that it shall be lawful for the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, from time to time to make rules and orders regulating the practice of the Court and for the purpose of adapting as far as possible the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, being an Act No. V of 1908, passed by the Governor-General in Council, and the provisions of any law which has been or may be made, amending or altering the same, by competent legislative authority for India, to all proceedings in its testamentary, intestate and matrimonial jurisdiction, respectively.” Moreover, the instant matter is no more res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh Wasu’s case (supra) in which it has been observed that proceedings in probate proceedings will be regulated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the Letters Patent Appeal has been held to be maintainable, the provisions of appeal as provided in Code of Civil Procedure will also be applicable to the proceedings in appeal. It is further added that for the purpose of impleading of the legal representative of deceased litigating party, the definition the term legal representative under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure would also apply. RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT TO BE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 11. The applicant has put-forth his claim as a prospective purchaser on the basis of an agreement of sale dated February 12, 1993 alleged to have been executed in favour of the applicant by three of the successor-in-interest/heirs of Ran Singh, (testator of the will), i.e. Basant Kaur, Sukhdial Singh and Harminder Kaur. 12. It is pertinent to observe here that after the death of Basant Kaur, Civil Misc. 12. It is pertinent to observe here that after the death of Basant Kaur, Civil Misc. No.2585 of 2002 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and the following order was passed on January 15, 2003 permitting the impleading of Manmohan Singh, (son of the testator), Sukhdial Singh (son of the testator), Jagd9v Singh (son of the testator) and Harminder Kaur (daughter of the testator), as legal representatives of Basant Kaur, deceased:­ “Subject to objection which may raise in future, the prayer made in this application No.2585 of 2002 for impleading applicants as Legal Representatives of Basant Kaur deceased is allowed. This application stands disposed of accordingly. Let necessary correction be made by the office.” Pursuant to this order, the above said four persons have already been impleaded as the legal representatives of Basant Kaur. While impleading the legal representatives of a deceased litigating party, a Court does not determine any right of succession. This is an exercise carried out only for the purpose that the estate of a deceased does not remain un-represented, and the person impleaded as party in place of a deceased has the right of continuing the suit or appeal. The proceedings for impleadment of legal representatives are summary in nature and the person (s) impleaded as legal representative, on the dint of an order passed in his/their favour alone, gets no right in the estate of the deceased. In this context a judgment of this Court in Gurwinder Singh and others Vs. Bawa Singh and others, (2002-2) PLR 720 is relevant. 13. Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure describes a legal representative as follows:­ “2(11) “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;” 14. Basant Kaur, appellant after her death is being represented by her legal representatives who have already been impleaded vide order dated January 15, 2003. There does not appear to be any necessity for the Court to implead any other person as legal representative in view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Vs. Basant Kaur, appellant after her death is being represented by her legal representatives who have already been impleaded vide order dated January 15, 2003. There does not appear to be any necessity for the Court to implead any other person as legal representative in view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Vs. Jage Ram and others, AIR 1971 SC 742 wherein it has been held that if a legal representative of a deceased is already on the record in another capacity, the appeal does not abate even though no application is made to bring them on record. In the present case, the legal representatives of Basant Kaur are already on the record though in an other capacity and have already been impleaded in her place as such, therefore, even in the absence of any application by the applicants, the Letters Patent Appeal does not abate. 15. The next question i.e. whether the applicant should be permitted to be impleaded as a legal representative requires to be considered in context to the agreement of sale executed by deceased Basant Kaur. The transfer of rights in property are broadly governed by specific provisions of the Transfer of Property Act adopted by States, as well as, by the broad principles of the said Act. The provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, pertaining to the sale of immoveable property specifically provided that a contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. In view of the fact that the agreement of sale in the present case is not a concluded contract and no interest or title or charge stands created in favour of applicant, he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a legal representative of Basant Kaur. We have also considered the contention of Mr. In view of the fact that the agreement of sale in the present case is not a concluded contract and no interest or title or charge stands created in favour of applicant, he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a legal representative of Basant Kaur. We have also considered the contention of Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned Senior counsel that it is only the executor under Section 307 of the Act who can dispose of the property and that he is the only legal representative competent to pursue an appeal, but we do not find any force in the same as Section 307 of the Act deals with the disposal of the properly, which has not been done by any of the heirs of the testator till date. The provisions of Section 211 of the Act referring to the executor being legal representative of the deceased are not applicable for the purpose of this application because the deceased person referred to in Section 211 of the Act is the person in context to Executor is the testator who is the author of the Will. The definition of deceased person under Section 211 of the Act is to be read alongwith the definition of Executor in Section 2(i) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, the application for impleadment of the applicant Harmohan Singh Paul as Legal Representative of Basant Kaur merely on the basis of an agreement of sale is without any merit and is thus dismissed. 16. Nothing mentioned in the abovesaid order except for the observations regarding maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal would effect the merits of the main case. 17. This application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing LPA No. 702 of 1996 on account of the fact that Basant Kaur, the sole appellant has died on February 19, 2001 and right to sue does not survive after her death for continuing proceedings of L.P.A. 18. In view of the decision rendered in Civil Misc. No. 2585 of 2002, vide order dated 16.10.2007, it has been held that Legal Representatives of Basant Kaur stand already impleaded and that Harmohan Singh Paul cannot be impleaded as Legal Representative of Basant Kaur. In view of the orders passed in said Misc. Application, the appeal cannot be said to have been abated after death of Basant Kaur. No. 2585 of 2002, vide order dated 16.10.2007, it has been held that Legal Representatives of Basant Kaur stand already impleaded and that Harmohan Singh Paul cannot be impleaded as Legal Representative of Basant Kaur. In view of the orders passed in said Misc. Application, the appeal cannot be said to have been abated after death of Basant Kaur. As such the Civil Misc. application is dismissed. 19. This is an application under Order XXIII Rule l-A, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and read with Section 151 CPC for transposing respondent No.4-applicant as co-appellant on the ground that he has got common interest with the appellants who have been impleaded as legal representatives of Basant Kaur. This application has been opposed by Manmohan Singh Grewal, son of Dr. Ran Singh, deceased, averring therein that the application for transposing under Order XXIII Rule I-A read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and read with Section 151 CPC is not maintainable as there is no abandonment or withdrawal of the suit and that the appeal has already been abated on account of death of Basant Kaur. On merits, it has been opposed on the ground that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 100-A of CPC and Under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Transposition of respondent No.4- applicant as appellant has been strongly opposed. 20. We have considered the application for transposing Sukhdial Singh as appellant. It is pertinent to mention that Sukhdial Singh has already been impleaded as ab heir of Basant Kaur- appellant, after her death. The applicant wants to be transposed as an appellant in his individual capacity in place of Basant Kaur. The applicant was a beneficiary under the Will. Since the Executor has opted not to file an appeal, the applicant Sukhdial Singh has got a right to contest and protect his rights. Although the application under Order XXIII Rule I-A read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not lie in the present circumstances as it is not a case where the case has been withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff but in view of the circumstance that the executor has opted not to file an appeal. The defendant who has an interest in the property in dispute can be permitted to be transposed as an appellant. The defendant who has an interest in the property in dispute can be permitted to be transposed as an appellant. In case the executor does not show any interest in pursuing the appeal, it would be improper to allow the individual rights by the heirs of deceased Ran Singh to be prejudiced. The non-filing of appeal by executor may be considered as a circumstance entitling the applicant to be impleaded as an appellant by way of transposition from respondent No.4 to be an appellant in his individual capacity. 21. In view of the above, the instant application is allowed. Sukhdial Singh, applicant-respondent No.4 is permitted to be transposed as appellant No.2 after (i) Manmohan Singh, (son of the testator), (ii) Sukhdial Singh, (son of the testator) (iii) Jagdev Singh, (son of the testator) and (iv) Harminder Kaur, (daughter of the testator) as legal representatives of Basant Kaur - appellant, as it is in the interest of justice, equity and for the just decision of the appeal. ------------------