ORDER Rajesh Kumar, J. - I.A. No. 3903 of 2018 The present interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants, for substitution of appellant No. 1, namely, Govind Manjhi, (in Civil Appeal No. 04/2008) who died on 25.06.2016 after passing of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 04/2008 on 13.06.2016. Decree has been signed on 22.06.2016. 2. The prayer has been made for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement and further permission for substitution. 3. In this contest, it is relevant to quote Order 22, Rule 3 and 4 of the C.P.C., which is as under:- 3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.- (1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff. 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 representative 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. (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. (5) Where- (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 of specified in the Limitation Act, 1996 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefor 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, in the Court shall, in considering the application under the said section 5, have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved. 4. This section applies in pending suit and appeal. 4. This section applies in pending suit and appeal. If, either plaintiff/defendant or appellant/respondent dies after disposal of the suit or before preferring the appeal i.e. when no suit or appeal is pending before any Court, is covered by Chapter 12 Rule 96 of the Jharkhand High Court, which is quoted hereunder: Chapter-XII, Rule 96.- A party to a decree or order desiring to appeal therefrom and to make the legal representative of a party who died before the decree or order was made, a respondent, may, if such legal representative has not been made a party to any subsequent proceedings under such decree or order, enter his name as a respondent in the memorandum of appeal if he presents therewith an affidavit showing that he did know before the decree or order was made that such party had died or had no reasonable opportunity of informing the Court before such decree or order was made that such party was dead and stating such other facts as may be necessary in support of his application. 5. Thus, from perusal of above section, it is clear that if any party of the suit or appeal dies after disposal of suit or appeal, then the legal heirs upon whom the interest has devolved and if cause of action survives, may prefer an appeal mentioning therein that the party of the suit is dead and on his/her behalf, his/her legal representative is filing the appeal. 6. In such a situation, rule of abatement will not apply, merely permission is required to be sought from the court for preferring the appeal on behalf of his/her legal representative. 7. In the present case, since, appellant no. 1 has died after passing or the decree and the fact of his death has been mentioned in the instant appeal by the legal representative who is appellant and as such there is no question of abatement. 8. In view of the above discussion, the legal representative of appellant no. 1 is permitted to maintain the present appeal on behalf of appellant no. 1. 9. However, considering the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice I.A. No. 3903 of 2018 is allowed. 10. Let the name of appellant no. 1, be substituted by his legal heirs as mentioned in para-4 of the instant interlocutory application. 11. 1 is permitted to maintain the present appeal on behalf of appellant no. 1. 9. However, considering the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice I.A. No. 3903 of 2018 is allowed. 10. Let the name of appellant no. 1, be substituted by his legal heirs as mentioned in para-4 of the instant interlocutory application. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary correction within a week in red ink.