JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J.:- By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 22.3.2011 and 9.5.2011, whereby the court below has allowed the applications filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, regarding death of plaintiff No. 2 Jhabbulal and plaintiff No.3 Hariram respectively. 2. Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by filing reply to aforesaid applications, the present petitioners took a categorical stand that date of death of Jhabbulal. and Hariram is disputed. Therefore, the court below should have enquired about the matter. He placed heavy reliance on a document filed at page 39 with the petition which is a death certificate of Hariram. On the basis of this document, Shri Bansal submits that it is apparent that Hariram expired on 1.2.2009 and the application was filed on 28.8.2009, which was barred by time. The court below has erred in allowing the said application. He submits that it is a fraud, which vitiates the judicial proceedings and, therefore, it should not have been allowed. He further submits that plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and have sought relief jointly in favour of all plaintiffs and, therefore, in the event of death of any of the plaintiffs, the entire suit will abate or atleast abate against the deceased plaintiffs. He also relied on (1996) 1SCC 291 (Papanna and another vs. State of Karnataka and others), (1996) 7 SCC 299 (Mukhtiar Singh and another vs. Kishan Kaur (Smt.) and others) and (2007) 4 SCC 221 (A.V Papayya Sastry and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others). 3. The next submission of Shri Bansal is that after the death of plaintiffs, the suit is automatically abated and in absence of any application for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay, the applications filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC should not have been allowed. He further submits that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere, the petitioners be given liberty to raise these issues in appeal. 4. Per Contra, Shri Vinod Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioners have placed reliance on a document, i.e. death certificate, which was never placed before the court below. 4. Per Contra, Shri Vinod Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioners have placed reliance on a document, i.e. death certificate, which was never placed before the court below. New material cannot be relied upon in Article 227 proceedings. He further submits that in absence of placing these material on record, it cannot be said that the court below has erred in any manner. Shri Bharadwaj further submits that as per 2002 AIHC 1436 (Ms. Suman Khanna v. M/s. Bharat Hotel & Restaurants) it is clear that if the deceased plaintiff was survived by his dependants and one of them is already on record as plaintiff, there is no question of abatement of suit. He also relied on the definition of 'legal representative' mentioned in Section 2(11) of CPC and further relied on the judgments reported in 1999 JLJ 453 (Man Singh (Raja) & another vs. Ramvishal & others), AIR 1970 PATNA1 (Ram Niranjan Das and another vs. Loknath Mandal and others) and AIR 1970 PATNA 384 (Amir Lal Thakur and others vs. Ram Krishna Singh and others) to submit that the suit by no stretch of imagination can abate because except plaintiff No.1 all are brothers and sisters. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This is settled in law that new factual material cannot be relied upon for the first time in Article 227 proceedings. Admittedly, death certificate (page 39) was not placed on record before the court below. Accordingly, the court below has not erred in deciding the applications on the basis of material on record. The said finding of court below cannot be said to be perverse or an impossible finding. The scope of interference under Article 227 is well defined and well established in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . This court is not sitting as an appellate court to reappreciate the material available before the trial court in absence of any perversity or judicial impropriety or jurisdictional error. Merely because another view is possible, this Court is not obliged to interfere. This court is not sitting as an appellate court to reappreciate the material available before the trial court in absence of any perversity or judicial impropriety or jurisdictional error. Merely because another view is possible, this Court is not obliged to interfere. Since new material is placed before this Court and the court below had no occasion to consider the said material, the judgments relied upon by Shri Bansal have no application. This Court has declined interference for the aforesaid reason and, therefore, those judgments which are based on different facts are not applicable. 7. In the light of the judgments in Suman Khanna and other cases cited above by the respondents, it is clear that the suit will not abate on the death of Hariram and Jhabbulal. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the court below has neither committed any error in allowing the applications under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC nor the suit abates on the death of said persons. 8. In the result, petition is devoid of merit and substance and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are given liberty to raise these issues in appeal if law permits.