JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal on 14.1.2008, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the sole respondent had expired and at request, two weeks' time was granted for moving appropriate application. The matter has thereafter been taken up for consideration today only. 2. No application has yet been moved for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has made attempts to establish contact with the appellants and sent communications in that regard but has not received any response. 3. Perusal of the record makes out that the suit for preemption as filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against the defendant-respondent-purchaser and the other defendants - vendors (who were deleted from the array of parties on 1.2.1982) came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court with negative findings on the case as set up by the plaintiffs-appellants of having a claim for preemption on the basis of the rights referable to Section 6(1) (iii) of the Rajasthan Preemption Act as being the owners of the property servant to the property transferred. The said 193 provision contained in Section 6 (1) (iii) of the Rajasthan Preemption Act has already been struck down as invalid by this Court in the case of Nen Mal & Ors. v. Kanmal & Ors., 1987(2) WLN 805 . 4. In any case, for the sole respondent having expired and no application for substitution having, been made, the appeal has abated; and be consigned to record as such.Appeal abated. *******