JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 12/9/2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the appeal as abated has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff-respondent, Rajesh, filed a suit for declaration of title in relation to Abadi land in Rawatsar on the ground that the plot in question was owned by Natthu Ram. The said plot was purchased by the plaintiff on 16/5/1975, however, Natthu Ram got the lease deed issued in the name of defendant Panna Ram from Municipal Board, Rawatsar on 3/11/1989, which was ineffective, illegal and void. The defendant Panna Ram, based on the lease deed dated 3/11/1989, transferred the plot to defendant Krishna Kant by registered sale deed dated 6/11/1989. It was claimed that the two transfers, by Natthu Ram in favour of Panna Ram and by Panna Ram in favour of Krishna Kant, were ineffective & void qua the plaintiff, and a decree was sought from the trial court. 3. The suit was contested by Panna Ram claiming title and subsequent sale to Krishan Kant. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 08 issues and added further two issues. After evidence was led by the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit on 5/4/2005. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed first appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Panna Ram expired. However, his legal representatives were not brought on record. The appellate court by its order dated 4/4/2009 noted the contention of the appellantrespondent plaintiff that as no relief was sought against Panna Ram, his legal representatives need not be brought on record and qua him the appeal has abated. 6. The appeal remained pending, when on 23/8/2017 an application was filed by the petitioner inter alia claiming that as the appeal has abated qua Panna Ram, no relief can be granted to the appellant therein and, therefore, the entire appeal deserves to be dismissed as abated. 7. The application was contested by the respondent no.1 herein. 8. 6. The appeal remained pending, when on 23/8/2017 an application was filed by the petitioner inter alia claiming that as the appeal has abated qua Panna Ram, no relief can be granted to the appellant therein and, therefore, the entire appeal deserves to be dismissed as abated. 7. The application was contested by the respondent no.1 herein. 8. The appellate court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as by order dated 4/4/2009 the appeal had only been abated qua Panna Ram (deceased) and as such the said aspect need not be considered at this stage, in case the implication of abatement qua the deceased was concerned, the petitioner herein would be free to raise issues at the time of final hearing and with the above observations dismissed the application. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that in the suit, the pleadings were amended by the plaintiff and specially para 8-A and 8-B were got incorporated seeking to question the lease deed issued in favour of the deceased Panna Ram and transfer made by him in favour of Krishna Kant claiming both the documents as void/ineffective. It was submitted that once the rights of Panna Ram are subject matter of the suit and the appeal has abated qua the deceased Panna Ram by order dated 4/4/2009 passed by the appellate court, further relief sought in the suit against the petitioner, which is the outcome of transfer made by deceased Panna Ram cannot be examined and no relief could be granted to the plaintiff and, therefore, the appeal abated as a whole and, as such, the appellate court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 10. Submissions were made that principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramagya Prasad Gupta & Ors. vs. Brahmadeo Prasad Gupta & Anr., (1972) AIR SC 1181 in relation to the effect of death of one of the parties to the suit are clearly attracted in the present case and, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that once the appellate court had passed the order dated 4/4/2009 abating the appeal in part, there was no occasion for the petitioner to move the present application seeking abatement of the appeal as a whole. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that once the appellate court had passed the order dated 4/4/2009 abating the appeal in part, there was no occasion for the petitioner to move the present application seeking abatement of the appeal as a whole. It was emphasized that the appellate court has left it open for the petitioner to make submissions pertaining to implication of abatement qua deceased Panna Ram and that the application was only made to delay the disposal of the appeal, which was rightly rejected by the appellate court. 12. Further submissions were made that merely on account of death of Panna Ram it cannot be said that the appeal would abate as a whole and on merits also there is no substance in the present revision petition. 13. Reliance was placed on Suja & Ors. vs. Ram Narain & Ors., (1992) AIR Raj. 163 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff had filed the suit qua his rights against Natthu Ram based on the registered sale deed dated 16/5/1975 and it was indicated that the said Natthu Ram got a lease deed issued in the name of his son Panna Ram on 3/11/1989, which was void qua his rights as the land had already been transferred by Natthu Ram to the plaintiff. Further based on the said lease deed, Panna Ram transferred the plot in question to petitioner Krishna Kant. It was claimed that the said transfer was also void. The plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration of his title qua the plot and permanent & mandatory injunction against the defendants for removal of construction and handing over the possession. 16. It appears that Natthu Ram died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record and by way of amendment, Panna Ram and Krishna Kant were impleaded as parties to the suit. 17. The suit was dismissed by the trial court against which appeal was filed by plaintiff Rajesh. During the pendency of the appeal, Panna Ram died and on 4/4/2009 as noticed hereinbefore, the appellate court inter alia passed the following order: 18. 17. The suit was dismissed by the trial court against which appeal was filed by plaintiff Rajesh. During the pendency of the appeal, Panna Ram died and on 4/4/2009 as noticed hereinbefore, the appellate court inter alia passed the following order: 18. Apparently, once the above order was passed, partly abating the appeal, it was required of the petitioner to make his submissions at that stage itself, in case he wanted to contend that the appeal has abated as a whole. However, after waiting for over 08 years, the present application was filed on 23/8/2017 seeking to contend that the appeal had abated as a whole. 19. The appellate court was justified in coming to the conclusion that once the order dated 4/4/2009 has been passed by the said court, abating the appeal in part, there was no occasion to reconsider the said aspect on an application in this regard and justifiably kept the issue of implication of abatement at the time of final hearing. The order passed by the appellate court appears to be wholly justified in the circumstances of the case. 20. Coming to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties, once the appellate court has kept the issue of implication of abatement on account of death of Panna Ram open, the submissions based on the said judgments need to be made before the said court only and apparently, the determination by this Court at this stage, based on an application which was filed after waiting for over 08 long years without any apparent justification, is not called for. The appellate court has already ordered that it would determine the issue at the time of final hearing, based on the submissions to be made by the parties. The court shall also keep in view the judgment in Hardeva vs. Ismail & Ors., (1970) AIR Raj. 167. 21. As the appeal is pending for over 15 years by now, it is expected of the appellate court to decide the same without any further loss of time by giving the appeal highest priority. 22. With the above observations, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 23. No order as to costs.