Ran Vijai Singh, J.— Counter affidavit filed today by Sri Sunil Verma is taken on record. Through this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.3.2012 by which the learned Member of Board of Revenue has admitted the appeal and passed an order for maintaining status-quo. It appears that a second appeal No. 08/11-12 was filed before the Board of Revenue in which late Harpal Singh husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was impleaded as respondent No. 2/1. Late Harpal Singh had filed a caveat application in the aforesaid appeal on 12.3.2012. Prior to that the appeal was filed and the date was fixed for 16.3.2012. On 16.3.2012 the matter could not be taken up and the date was postponed for 23.3.2012. It appears that respondent No. 2/1 died on 16.3.2012 and on the date fixed i.e. 23.3.2012, the counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/1 has filed an application that his client had died, therefore, the case may be adjourned and prayed for passing appropriate order on the application. It is contended that learned Member Board of Revenue instead of passing any order on the application of the petitioners has proceeded with the matter and admitted the appeal and granted the order of status-quo. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Order XXII Rule 4, C.P.C. no order could be passed on the aforesaid appeal against a dead person. It is submitted that the order impugned is a nullity as against the heirs of respondent No. 2/1. Sri Sunil Verma alongwith Sri H.N. Prasad learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the Board. He has also submitted that it is an interlocutory order and the writ petition would not lie. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 appellant therein has stated that he has already filed the substitution application on 30.3.2012. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue so far as it relates to the remaining respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 appellant therein has stated that he has already filed the substitution application on 30.3.2012. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue so far as it relates to the remaining respondents. So far as the case of the present petitioners is concerned, it is well settled law that if any order has been passed against a dead person the heirs of that deceased are not bound by that order. The order is clarified to that extent. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. _