JUDGMENT : Sophy Thomas, J. This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner in O.P No.381 of 2010 of Family Court, Thiruvalla against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2014. 2. The appellant/wife filed the above O.P for recovery of patrimony. The Family Court allowed the O.P in part, permitting the appellant to realise Rs.50,000/-with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and also to get back the movables or its equivalent value Rs.36,000/-from respondents 2 and 3 who are the brother and mother of her deceased husband. The 1st respondent-husband is no more and the lower court ordered that the case against him was abated, as no steps were taken by the appellant/petitioner to implead his legal heirs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant preferred this appeal alleging that she has to get back Rs.3 lakh being the patrimony amount, and Rs.65,000/-deposited by her father in her bank account which was subsequently paid to the 1st respondent along with 92 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value, and also the movables or its equivalent value Rs.68,000/-. According to her, respondents 1 to 3 and their assets, are to be held liable for her claim. 3. The 2nd respondent, who is the brother of her deceased husband, admitted receipt of Rs.50,000/-from the father of the appellant to meet the marriage expenses. The 3rd respondent, mother of respondents 1 and 2, was admitting entrustment of an Air Conditioner, Nilavilakku and dinner set worth Rs.36,000/-in total. Accordingly, a decree was passed to that extent against respondents 2 and 3, and no decree was passed against the 1st respondent or his assets finding that, case against him was abated. Now the short question to be considered is whether the case against the 1st respondent will abate for want of steps from the side of the appellant/petitioner to implead his legal heirs. 4. Admittedly, during the pendency of O.P No.381 of 2010, the 1st respondent/husband passed away on 22.08.2010. On 26.10.2010 itself, the death of the 1st respondent was reported before the Family Court. On 21.01.2011, the Family Court recorded the case against the 1st respondent as abated, as no steps were taken. 4. Admittedly, during the pendency of O.P No.381 of 2010, the 1st respondent/husband passed away on 22.08.2010. On 26.10.2010 itself, the death of the 1st respondent was reported before the Family Court. On 21.01.2011, the Family Court recorded the case against the 1st respondent as abated, as no steps were taken. In the impugned judgment, the Family Court observed that some of the ornaments owned by the wife might have been entrusted with her husband, and though it was clear from Exts.A3 to A7 documents, that he had either sold or pledged her gold ornaments, since the case against him was abated, no decree could have been passed against him. Now we have to find out whether the abatement recorded against the 1st respondent was proper or legal. 5. Order XXII CPC deals with abatement, on party's death. Order XXII Rule 1 CPC says that death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit abated if the right to sue survives. Order XXII Rule 2 CPC reads as follows: “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”. 6. In the case in hand, the 1st respondent died on 22.08.2010. Respondents 2 and 3 are his brother and mother, and it was evident from their address itself. Moreover, since the O.P being a matrimonial dispute, the relationship between the parties were so explicit in the pleadings itself. The Family Court, without causing an entry to the effect that the right to sue survives and the legal heirs of the 1st respondent are already in the party array, proceeded to record that the case against the 1st respondent abated as no steps were taken by respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a memo on 14.03.2012 stating that the appellant-wife and the 3rd respondent mother are the only legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent, and no other persons are there to be impleaded. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a memo on 14.03.2012 stating that the appellant-wife and the 3rd respondent mother are the only legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent, and no other persons are there to be impleaded. Even after receiving that memo, the Family Court proceeded to pronounce the judgment on 17.05.2014, treating the case against the 1st respondent as abated. 7. The Family Court went wrong in recording that the case against the 1st respondent abated even when the right to sue survived and his legal representatives were already on record. It is true that no memo was filed by the appellant within the statutory period, reporting that the legal heirs were already on the party array, and no other persons are there to be impleaded. Even if no application for impleading the legal heirs was made within the statutory period of limitation, when at least one of the legal representatives was already on record, and the right to sue survived, the proceedings will not abate as it was held in Mahabir Prasad vs. Jage Ram and others ( (1971) 1 SCC 265 ). This Court has held in K.G.Kuruvila vs. Dy. Collector (L.A) and another reported in 2007 KHC 5319 that even if there is no formal recording of a person as the legal representative of the deceased, that would not be a sufficient ground to hold that there was abatement, if really there was no abatement in law. Since respondents 2 and 3, the only legal heirs of the 1st respondent, were already in the party array, the estate of the deceased was substantially represented, and so there was no abatement at all. 8. When the legal representatives of the deceased are already in the party array, the question of recording is only a matter of procedure, and any irregularity in the matter of procedure would not affect the principle of law, as to abatement. Even if no formal application was made to record the legal representative of the deceased, who was already in the array of parties, there would be no abatement. The delay in filing a memo to record the appellant-wife and the 3rd respondent as the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent, will not empower the court to record abatement, as the right to sue survived and the legal representatives, representing the estate of the deceased were already on the party array. 9. The delay in filing a memo to record the appellant-wife and the 3rd respondent as the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent, will not empower the court to record abatement, as the right to sue survived and the legal representatives, representing the estate of the deceased were already on the party array. 9. Order XXII Rule 2 CPC requires the court to cause an entry to be made on the record to the effect that the suit survives against the surviving defendant or defendants. It was not necessary to implead them again, for substituting them in a different capacity as the legal representatives of the deceased. In Parameswaran Padmanabhan Nambi vs. Ramakrishna Iyer Raghava Iyer reported in 1952 KLT 103 , a Division Bench of this Court held that the Civil Procedure Code does not provide for any application being made in that behalf, and even an oral intimation will be sufficient. There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code to support the view that the failure to give the intimation, and the consequent omission on the part of the court to make the entry as required by Rule 2 of Order XXII CPC, will make the decree a nullity. 10. The Family Court was intimated about the death of the 1st respondent on 26.10.2010 and ignoring the fact that the right to sue survived, and his legal heirs were already in the party array, the court proceeded to record that the case against the 1st respondent abated, and hence it was not legal or proper. So we find that the O.P against the 1st respondent will not abate as his estate was substantially represented by his legal heirs who were already in the party array. 11. Pending appeal, the 3rd respondent, mother also died. A memo was filed to the effect that the 2nd respondent is the only legal representative of the deceased respondents 1 and 3. As we have found, the 1st respondent-husband died on 22.08.2010. The Family Court, on 21.01.2011, recorded that the case against him was abated for want of steps. The respondents 2 and 3 filed their written statement on 26.03.2012 i.e. after the case against the 1st respondent was recorded as abated. As we have found, the 1st respondent-husband died on 22.08.2010. The Family Court, on 21.01.2011, recorded that the case against him was abated for want of steps. The respondents 2 and 3 filed their written statement on 26.03.2012 i.e. after the case against the 1st respondent was recorded as abated. So, obviously, they had not contested the case as the legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent, and the evidence and documents produced by the appellant were also not seen challenged by them in that capacity. In the result, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree to the extent it dismissed the claim of the appellant, and the case is remanded back for fresh disposal. The 2nd respondent is at liberty to file additional written statement as the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent, and both parties are free to adduce additional evidence in support of their contentions. Since the O.P is of the year 2010, the Family Court, Thiruvalla is directed to dispose the case within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Thiruvalla on 01.12.2021. We make it clear that we have not set aside the decree granted in favour of the appellant to realise Rs.50,000/-and to get back movables worth Rs.36,000/-. Registry is directed to return the LCR forthwith.