JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party No. 1. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara in Civil Revision No. 1 of 2009 confirming the order dated 09.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara in T.S. No. 213 of 1999 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for abatement of the suit. 3. On Perusal of records, it appears that opposite party No. 1 along with one Banu Sutar as plaintiffs filed T.S. No. 213 of 1999 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara for declaration of right, title, interest and possession and for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit plaintiff No. 2-Banu Sutar died and his legal heirs were not substituted in the suit itself. However, they were parties to the counter claim filed by the defendants. As steps to substitute the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No. 2 were not taken, the petitioners filed an application before the Court below for abatement of the entire suit. The Court below by order dated 09.11.2009 rejected the said application. 4. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 1 of 2009 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara. The learned Revisional Court considering the fact that the suit is for permanent injunction and one of the plaintiff being died the right to sue survives, by the impugned order confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 5. Mr. Tripathy learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the plaintiffs were seeking for declaration of right, title and interest and as the prayer is not divisible the suit will abate as a whole due to non substitution of the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No. 2. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Abala Mohapatra v. Krushna Ch. Tripathy and others reported in, 2009 (I) CLR 566 wherein this Court held that a decree under appeal if joint and not divisible, the appeal having abated against some of the respondents, the appeal has to abate as a whole. 6. There is no dispute about the aforesaid settled position of law. Tripathy and others reported in, 2009 (I) CLR 566 wherein this Court held that a decree under appeal if joint and not divisible, the appeal having abated against some of the respondents, the appeal has to abate as a whole. 6. There is no dispute about the aforesaid settled position of law. However, in the present case the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No. 2 have already been brought into record in the counter claim filed by the defendants. In the meantime the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No. 2 have already filed application to be impleaded as parties to the suit as right to sue survives to them. Hence, the irregularity due to lack of proper legal advice can be regularized and a party should not suffer due to the inadvertent mistake in not taking steps within the time. As the action of the plaintiff is bona fide one, the Court below shall consider the application to impleaded the legal heirs of plaintiff No. 2 and the belated action in filing the application to implead them as parties to the suit can be compensated by awarding cost. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara in Civil Revision No. 1 of 2009 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1999 and it is submitted that the same is ready for hearing, it is open to the parties to move the Court below for early disposal of the suit. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 26.9.2011 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 14424 of 2011 stands vacated. Final Result : Dismissed