JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Chakeri, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the HAL) and Sri Arvind Srivastava, who is representing the respondent-applicants. 2. The present First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1st December, 1992, passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 714 of 1983, Kanhaiya Lal Verma v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. This Suit was partly decreed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar holding that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) were owners in possession of Plot No. 207, area 9 Bigha 11 Biswa, Plot No. 209/1, area 15 Bigha 6 Biswa and Plot No. 230/2, 8 Bigha 10 Biswa. It was also held that the Defendants have no title or possession over the land in dispute. While entertaining the Appeal preferred against the said Judgment and decree, an interim order was passed by this Court on 28.1.1993 staying the operation of the judgment dated 1.1.1992 and the decree passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Before this Court objections/counter affidavits were filed by the respondents contesting the appeal highlighting therein that they are in possession over the property in dispute. 3. After presentation of this Appeal in the year 1993, Respondent No. 6, Sri Rama Krishna, had expired on 26th January, 1994. The factum of death of Rama Krishna, plaintiff/respondent No. 6 was brought to the notice of the appellant, that is, M/s. HAL, on 7th March, 1994. According to Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the HAL was informed of this date and this fact of death and an intimation to this effect was recorded in the order-sheet of the lower Court. The representative of HAL was present in the Court and he has also put his signature in the order-sheet of that date, that is, 7th March, 1994 and thereafter the case was listed before the lower Court. At the time of sending back of the record to the lower Court, a formal endorsement was made on 2nd July, 1994 recording this development. The deceased respondent No. 6 left behind his four sons, his legal heir and legal representatives. M/s. HAL, the appellant, till date has not taken any steps whatsoever to substitute heirs of deceased respondent No. 6. The deceased respondent No. 6 left behind his four sons, his legal heir and legal representatives. M/s. HAL, the appellant, till date has not taken any steps whatsoever to substitute heirs of deceased respondent No. 6. A death certificate of respondent No. 6 as well as order-sheet of the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 18/74/93 arising out of the application moved by the appellant for correction of the decree was placed on record. These documents find place as Annexures 1 and 2 to the affidavit submitted by the respondents seeking formal orders that the appeal had already stood abated. 4. At the time of submission of this application on 5.3.1997, a copy of application was given to then learned counsel for the appellant (HAL) on 4.9.1997. However, Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, HAL, has denied that any such application was ever given to him when the case came up for hearing. It appears from the record that Sri S.D. Singh was not counsel for the appellant on 4.9.1997 or at the time of filing of the appeal. However, a copy of the application was immediately made available to him by the Court. Even after receiving the copy of the application, no attempt has been made for impleading the legal heirs of Sri Rama Krishna, respondent No. 6. 5. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, has pressed application dated 5.3.1997 and put-forth his detailed arguments. According to him, after the death of Sri Rama Krishna on 26.1.1994, the Appeal had already stood abated as no efforts were made by the appellant to implead the legal heirs of respondent No. 6. He has drawn attention of the Court to an order passed by the XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 10.1.2002 in which observations had been made that one of the respondents, that is, respondent No. 6 had already died and the submissions of the respondents were considered by the said Court on 10.1.2002 that the appeal had already stood abated. Despite taking part in the proceedings before the XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, M/s. HAL has not filed any formal application seeking substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No. 6. Despite taking part in the proceedings before the XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, M/s. HAL has not filed any formal application seeking substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No. 6. Thus, four opportunities were made available to the appellant, M/s. HAL, that is, in the years 1994, 1997, 2002 and 2009 when the case was listed to take necessary and appropriate steps, but the appellant failed to do so. Unnecessary technical objections have been raised to confuse the issue. 6. Sri Arvind Srivastava has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in 1996(2) JCLR 256 (SC), Shri Bakshis Singh (dead) by Lrs. v. Arjan Singh and others; 2009(3) SCR 451, T. Gnanavel v. T.S. Kanagaraj and another; AIR 1962 SC 89 , State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram and 2001(1) JCLR 590 (SC), Shankar Lal and another v. Shakil Ahmad and others to pursue the Court that under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the C.P.C., the Appeal has already stood abated. In the present case, there existed a joint decree and it was essential for the appellant, M/s. HAL, to implead all the joint decree-holders including the legal heirs of respondent No. 6. In these circumstances, as has been laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal has already stood abated and as such formal orders may be passed taking note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. On the other hand Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, M/s. HAL, has opposed the application by filing counter affidavit/objection. According to him, the appellant, M/s. HAL, has already applied for recall of the order dated 11.8.2009 and as such this application cannot be dealt with. It is further submitted that the appellant, M/s. HAL, has submitted that the appellant, M/s. HAL, had filed a Restoration Application in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2001. This Restoration Application is still pending disposal. However, it is admitted that the application was dealt with by the XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and an order was passed on 10.1.2002. There could be only one Appeal filed by the appellant, M/s. HAL, against the judgment dated 1.12.1992. This Restoration Application is still pending disposal. However, it is admitted that the application was dealt with by the XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and an order was passed on 10.1.2002. There could be only one Appeal filed by the appellant, M/s. HAL, against the judgment dated 1.12.1992. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit to the Abatement Application that the copy of the application seeking abatement or formal order filed on 5.3.1997 was served upon him (that is Sri S.D. Singh) on 6.8.2009. This application, according to him was not maintainable. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. There is substance in the submissions of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 6-Rama Krishna had died on 26.1.1994. This fact was brought to the notice of the appellant by the respondents within a reasonable time, that is, by submitting an application on 7th March, 1994. This fact was also brought to the notice of the legal representative/counsel of M/s. HAL, who was pursuing the Appeal in the lower Court. A formal application was submitted by the respondents on 5.3.1997 in this Application seeking appropriate orders regarding abatement of the appeal. This application is on record and the matter was listed on several dates, after submission of the aforesaid application, that is, on 15.9.2004, 4.8.2009 and 11.8.2009, but it appears that the appellant was not serious about pursuing the litigation either before this Court or before the lower Court. In the present case, no application was submitted at appropriate time, that is, within the period of limitation by the appellant to bring on record, heirs and legal representatives of respondent No. 6. It is noteworthy that no exemption was also sought by the appellant from the necessity of substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent No. 6 and no attempt was made to file any application within the limitation to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of respondent No. 6 and as such the period of limitation has also expired. Since in the present case, a joint decree was passed by the Trial Court, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, cited above, the Appeal shall not proceed. In fact, it has already stood abated in the year 1994. 10. Since in the present case, a joint decree was passed by the Trial Court, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, cited above, the Appeal shall not proceed. In fact, it has already stood abated in the year 1994. 10. The Court has also taken note of the objection filed by the appellant in response to the Abatement Application filed before the Court below (Paper No. 34-Ga) wherein the appellant has taken a stand that there was no requirement to file Substitution Application. It clearly shows that the appellant was not desirous of filing any application for substitution. A suggestion has been made that since the respondents were members of the “Trust” or a “Trust” and as such there was no necessity of filing an application for substitution. The submission is wholly misconceived. The Court has seen the array of the parties before the Trial Court, in the Appeal, decree and other documents. It has nowhere been shown that the Suit was decreed in favour of a “Trust” or any other legal entity. Individuals were decree-holders. The parties in personam had filed the Suit and were holding the decree. They were impleaded as individuals in the present Appeal. The “Trust’ was not the plaintiff before the Trial Court. 11. In view of the above, this argument is not tenable and is accordingly rejected. 12. It is also relevant to note here that no effort was made by the appellant to seek setting aside of the abatement of the Appeal. It is surprising to note that various technical objections were raised before the Court regarding valuation of the Suit or the Appeal. The learned XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in its order dated 10.1.2002 has taken note that the valuation of the Suit was above Rs. 10 Lakhs. Specific issues were framed by the Trial Court and it was held that the valuation of the Appeal was above Rs. 10 Lakhs. Interestingly, the Appeal has been filed by M/s. HAL on the ground that valuation of the Appeal is Rs. 10 Lakhs. Specific pleadings and admissions are also available on record to this effect that the valuation was above Rs. 10 Lakhs (not Rs. 25,000/-) as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant (Sri S.D. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, M/s. HAL). 10 Lakhs. Specific pleadings and admissions are also available on record to this effect that the valuation was above Rs. 10 Lakhs (not Rs. 25,000/-) as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant (Sri S.D. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, M/s. HAL). In any case, under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the omission and mistake crept in the decree can always be corrected by the Court. 13. The Court has seen the judgment and admission of the appellant (vide affidavit of N.S. Nirankari, Deputy Manager, Legal, HAL, Kanpur), which itself showed that the valuation was Rs. 10,92,360/-. However, a typing mistake has crept in the certified copy of the decree filed along with the memorandum of the Appeal in which the valuation was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 25,000/- only. This fact has also been admitted in various affidavits filed by the appellant and accordingly it appears that similar confusion was created by M/s. HAL, the appellant before this Court when the orders dated 10.3.1997 and 23.12.1997 were passed. Thus, this Court, after going through the judgment and orders passed by the lower Court, has discovered that the valuation of the Suit was above Rs. 10 Lakhs and the Appeal is cognizable by this Court and as such orders dated 10.3.1997 and 23.12.1997 were recalled on 11.8.2009. 14. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments and the provisions contained in the Order XXII, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the view that the Appeal shall not proceed further as it has already stood abated. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is made clear that the Appeal is dismissed treating it to have already stood abated. All the necessary consequences shall follow. The record of the lower Court shall be transmitted back immediately to the Trial Court/Executing Court. Lower Court to take further necessary steps for execution of the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1992. This order shall have effect on all the proceedings pending before the Court below at Kanpur Nagar. 15. Since this Appeal has been dismissed as it has already stood abated, the Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2001, M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur v. Kanhaiya Lal Verma and others shall also not proceed further. 16. This order shall have effect on all the proceedings pending before the Court below at Kanpur Nagar. 15. Since this Appeal has been dismissed as it has already stood abated, the Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2001, M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur v. Kanhaiya Lal Verma and others shall also not proceed further. 16. This view derives strength from a recent judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (2) ARC 848, Chandram Prasad Gupta v. Shyam Behari Shukla and another. ————