JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - On 12.5.2017 this Court had upon OMP No. 426 of 2016 made a direction upon the plaintiff to through an appropriate application, hence beget substitution of deceased co defendant No. 2 by his LRs. However, today it stands revealed that on demise of one Munshi Ram Sethi, co-defendant No. 2, his estate is represented by co-defendant No. 5. At this stage, no material exists on record in respect of the latter''s estate being represented by LRs other than co defendant No. 5. Consequently, bearing in mind the mandate occurring in the provisions of Order 22, Rule 2 CPC, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: "2. Procedure where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives-Where there are more plaintiffs or defendants than one, and any of them dies, and where the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, the Court shall cause an entry to that effect to be made on the record, and the suit shall proceed at the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs, or against the surviving defendant or defendants", wherein it stands postulated that with the memo of parties borne in the apposite plaint reflecting the arraying therein of more than one plaintiffs or more than one defendant(s), as is the scenario hereat, thereupon on occurrence of demise of one or several co-plaintiffs or of co-defendants, besides emphatically with the right to sue evidently surviving upon other co-plaintiffs or against surviving defendants, given the latters being the LRs of deceased co-plaintiffs or of deceased co defendants,'' as is the apt capacity held by co-defendant No. 5, thereupon a direction being enjoined to be meted by this Court that all records in the aforesaid respect be appositely updated. 2. In aftermath, when co-defendant No. 5 is at this stage shown to be the person who on demise of co defendant No. 2, is competent to represent the latters'' estate, thereupon when the right to maintain the instant suit against co-defendant No. 5 hence survives. As a corollary, the Registry is directed to make apposite reflection(s) in the memo of parties of the instant suit. As a corollary, the Registry is directed to make apposite reflection(s) in the memo of parties of the instant suit. It is also not necessary for the learned counsel for the plaintiff to move an application under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 CPC, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter, to thereupon beget substitution of deceased co-defendant No. 2 by his LRs. "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 representatives 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. (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. (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 therefore 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. 3. Conspicuously, when the provisions borne in Order 22, Rule 4 CPC, are applicable only when the LRs of deceased litigant(s) concerned are not reflected in the apposite memo of parties in the plaint concerned nor obviously they stand arrayed therein either in the array of co-plaintiffs or of co-defendants, thereupon with hence on demise of the litigant concerned the right to sue not surviving vis-a-vis them or against the deceased defendant concerned, whereupon in consonance with the aforesaid provision(s) an application being enjoined to be moved by the litigant concerned qua the LR(s) of the deceased concerned, being ordered to be brought on record for hence obviating the ill consequence of the suit or the proceedings automatically abating in whole or in part as the case may be. 4. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.