JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 31-3-2004 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.5-A/2004, whereby learned Additional District Judge has held that deceased Tulsiram was tenant of deceased plaintiff Ganesh Prasad and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not brought the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record. 2. Judgment & decree are challenged on the ground that present respondent Ramesh Kumar is son of deceased Tulsiram and he is already on record, all legal representatives of deceased defendant Tulsiram were not necessary party and the plaintiff was not required to bring all legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record. 3. Case of plaintiff/deceased Ganesh Prasad Soni in nutshell is that Ganesh Prasad Soni was owner of the suit house, deceased Tulsiram was tenant and present respondent Ramesh Kumar was subtenant of the suit house. Deceased Ganesh Prasad Soni has filed a suit for ejection and recovery of the arrears of rent. Deceased Tulsiram & present respondent Ramesh Kumar have denied the relationship of owner & tenant between themselves & deceased Ganesh Prasad and specifically alleged that Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur is the owner of the suit house. Deceased Tulsiram was not tenant & Ramesh Kumar was not subtenant of deceased Ganesh Prasad. Both the parties have led evidence and the Court has decided most of the issues in favour of deceased plaintiff Ganesh Prasad, but has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to bring all legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram (defendant) on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment & decree and record of the Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below has decided all substantial issues in favour of deceased Ganesh Prasad, the original plaintiff, but has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to bring all the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record. One legal representative of deceased Tulsiram namely, defendant Ramesh Kumar is already on record, therefore, the plaintiff was not required to bring all the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record, even in absence of all legal representatives of the deceased the suit was maintainable. One legal representative of deceased Tulsiram namely, defendant Ramesh Kumar is already on record, therefore, the plaintiff was not required to bring all the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record, even in absence of all legal representatives of the deceased the suit was maintainable. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Chandra Mohan Saha and another v. Union of India and another1 in which it has been held that the parties are required to take objection relating to necessary party at an early stage and if such objection is not taken at an earlier stage, then it should be deemed to have been waived. If party is represented adequately, failure to make other person as party would not abate the suit or appeal. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Sm. Swarna Lata Devi v. M/s. Krishna Iron Foundry & Metal Works (P) Ltd.2 in which it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that co-sharer brought on record as having certain interest in property is competent to represent entire interests. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and another3 in which the Apex Court has held that in the case of suit filed by landlord for eviction, if all the interested persons are not made party, decree passed in such suit should be set aside for affording an opportunity of making the interest persons as party. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the deceased plaintiff has not brought present respondent Ramesh Kumar on record as legal representative of deceased defendant Tulsiram, but deceased plaintiff Ganesh Prasad has made Ramesh Kumar as defendant on the ground of sub-tenancy, however, after the death of Tulsiram, the deceased plaintiff has not brought any legal representative of deceased Tulsiram on record, therefore, no effective decree can be passed against the legal representative of deceased Tulsiram. 7. In the instant case, the Court below has decided substantial issue relating to landlord & tenant and arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff, but has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to bring legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record. 7. In the instant case, the Court below has decided substantial issue relating to landlord & tenant and arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff, but has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to bring legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record. According to the allegation of the plaint, deceased Tulsiram & Ramesh Kumar were not tenants of deceased plaintiff Ganesh Prasad, but Tulsiram was the original tenant and Ramesh Kumar was sub-tenant of deceased Tulsiram and the suit house was sublet by deceased Tulsiram to defendant Ramesh Kumar. The order dated 9-7-2001 of the Court below reveals that respondent Ramesh Kumar has objected at the time of deletion of the name of Tulsiram that the plaintiff has not brought the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record. This is not the case in which respondent Ramesh Kumar has not objected or was silent at the time of deletion of the name of Tulsiram, after the death of Tulsiram. 8. In case of death of the defendant if cause of action survives, the plaintiff is required to cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party in accordance with Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the Code'). Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code read thus, "4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.-(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. (4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place. (5) Where- (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefor in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had, by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act, the Court shall, in considering the application under the said section 5 have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved." 9. In the case of Daya Ram and others v. Shyam Sundari and others4 the Apex Court has held that if impleaded legal representatives sufficiently representing the estate of the deceased, omission to implead certain representatives of respondent will prevent the suit from abatement. 10. In the case of Newanness alias Mewajannessa v. Shaikh Mohamad and others5 the Apex Court has held that if estate of the deceased is represented by some of the legal representatives, the appeal would not abate due to failure of substitution of heirs of deceased. 11. While dealing with the same question in the case of Bhavsingh (Dead) by L.Rs. In the case of Newanness alias Mewajannessa v. Shaikh Mohamad and others5 the Apex Court has held that if estate of the deceased is represented by some of the legal representatives, the appeal would not abate due to failure of substitution of heirs of deceased. 11. While dealing with the same question in the case of Bhavsingh (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Keshar Singh and others6, the Apex Court has held that if the estate of the deceased is fully represented by any legal representative, the appeal will not abate. 12. In the case of Ram Das and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others7 it has been held by the Apex Court that if all legal representatives are impleaded on record except one for want of his particulars, the appeal will not abate. He can be subsequently impleaded. 13. In this case son of deceased Tulsiram i.e. the present respondent was contesting the case and was already on record, but after the death of Tulsiram, the appellants had not impleaded the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram as defendants. 14. In case of death of the defendant if cause of action survives, the plaintiff is required to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendant as a party and if the legal representatives of the deceased are not impleaded as party, the suit against such defendants shall be finally abated in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code. But if some of the legal representatives of the deceased are impleaded as defendants or already in the party who may adequately represent the estate of the deceased, the suit will not abate, however, for substantial adjudication of the case and for passing effective decree, the plaintiff/appellant is required to implead all representatives of the deceased as defendants. 15. In this case, even after objection made by the sole surviving defendant i.e. the present respondent, the deceased plaintiff had not impleaded other legal representatives of the deceased defendant Tulsiram as defendants. The Court below has also rejected the objection of the respondent vide its order dated 9-7-2001. For proper adjudication of this case, legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram are necessary party and the plaintiff/appellants are required to implead them as defendants in the suit. The Court below has also rejected the objection of the respondent vide its order dated 9-7-2001. For proper adjudication of this case, legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram are necessary party and the plaintiff/appellants are required to implead them as defendants in the suit. The Court below has rejected the objection of the respondent vide order dated 9-7- 2001, but at the time of final disposal of the case, the Court below has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the appellants have not made the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram as defendants. The trial Court was required to afford opportunity of bringing the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record, to the plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment & decree impugned are not sustainable. 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment & decree dated 31-3-2004 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.5-A/2004 are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Court below for providing opportunity of bringing the legal representatives of deceased Tulsiram on record and after providing opportunity of hearing, decide the case afresh. Parties shall bear their costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly.