Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.—Heard Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 9 and 19. 2. The matter has been coming up for passing orders on various Interlocutory Applications filed either on behalf of the appellants or the respondents. 3. At the outset, the Court would indicate that Interlocutory Application No. 4138 of 2018 and Interlocutory Application No. 24 of 2021 filed on behalf of respondent no. 9 have been taken up first for the reason that prayer has been made in the said Interlocutory Applications for holding that the present First Appeal has abated on account of death of respondents no. 8(i), 8(iii), 9, 23, 24, 29(c), 33 and 34 as per Interlocutory Application No. 4138 of 2018 and respondents no. 11, 26, 30(d), 32(ii) as also appellants no. 9 and 11 as per Interlocutory Application No. 24 of 2021. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 9 and 19 pressing the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications submitted that the abovenamed respondents died in the year 1999, 2010, 2006, 2016, 2005, 2016, 2010, 2015, 2021, 2017, 2020 and 2020 respectively, whereas the appellants no. 9 and 11 have also died but the date is now known to him. 5. Learned counsel submitted that for substituting the respondents no. 8(i), 8(iii), 9, 23, 24, 29(c), 33 and 34, Interlocutory Application No. 16 of 2019 has been filed on 06.02.2019, whereas for substituting the respondents no. 11, 26 and 30(d), Interlocutory Application No. 22 of 2021 has been filed and with regard to respondents no. 30(d) and 32(ii) Interlocutory Application No. 20 of 2021 has been filed whereas no application has been filed with regard to respondent no. 26 and appellants no. 9 and 11. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the delay is ranging from a year to 20 years and, thus, it shows absolute casualness on the part of the appellants in pursuing the appeal and the same suffers from willful delay and laches. 26 and appellants no. 9 and 11. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the delay is ranging from a year to 20 years and, thus, it shows absolute casualness on the part of the appellants in pursuing the appeal and the same suffers from willful delay and laches. It was submitted that even in the Interlocutory Applications filed seeking condonation of such delay no valid cause has been shown as the delay has also not been explained as is required for the entire period and only a vague statement has been made that such death was not in the knowledge of the appellants, which cannot be accepted since the appeal arises out of a partition suit and the parties being agnates, it cannot be believed that for such a long period of two decades, they would be unaware of the death having occurred of any of the parties, who are closely related to each other. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the law requiring such substitution to be made within 90 days of the death having occurred, the delay of so many years is not fit to be allowed. Further, it was submitted that as of now, the appeal itself has automatically stood abated and for setting aside the abatement even till date with regard to respondent no. 26 and appellants no. 9 and 11 there being no petition on record, on an overall view, the entire appeal should be held to have abated. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sirdevi and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 [: 2022 (3) BLJ 156 (SC)], for the proposition that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially based on facts and circumstances of each case and sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is attributed to the party and further that even if it may harshly affect rights of a party it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by the statute. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budh Ram vs. Bansi, (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 476, the relevant being at paragraphs no. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budh Ram vs. Bansi, (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 476, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 17 to 20, for the proposition that the abatement of appeal due to death of one respondent would lead to abatement against other respondents also, more so, in cases where there is joint and indivisible decree as in the present case, where in a partition suit till actually there is partition, there is a joint and indivisible right of all the co-sharers on the entire property and, thus, in the absence of so many parties, the appeal, but necessarily, has to abate. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that the Court has also held that abatement is automatic and there is no need for any declaration and the same has to be set aside by a formal order which till date has not been done. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to order dated 24.11.1994 which discloses that the appeal had already abated against the heirs of deceased respondent no. 3(i) and further that the order dated 12.02.2009 would indicate that two weeks time was granted to serve copy of Interlocutory Application No. 193 of 2007 to the guardian advocate of minor respondents no. 11 to 21 and 23 to 25 which was peremptory and due to non-compliance the appeal stood rejected with regard to deceased appellant no. 2 and respondent no. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court may take a lenient view as it is a partition suit and the right of the parties exist which should be allowed to be adjudicated on merits. However, on a query of the Court with regard to there being no substantive explanation for the delay, learned counsel could not give any reply. 8. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that there is an adjudication by the original Court and, thus, it cannot be said that the rights have not been adjudicated. Once a law is in place, which in the present case is the law of limitation, and the period prescribed for substituting a dead person/party, is within 90 days and multiple parties not being substituted for years together, the maximum being 20 years, the Court does not find it persuaded to interfere in the abatement. 9. Once a law is in place, which in the present case is the law of limitation, and the period prescribed for substituting a dead person/party, is within 90 days and multiple parties not being substituted for years together, the maximum being 20 years, the Court does not find it persuaded to interfere in the abatement. 9. Coming to the question of whether the entire appeal would stand abated, it is obvious that in a partition suit, till the decree is passed, in the entire property, there is indivisible and inseparable jointness. Thus, the absence of so many persons whose share is in the corpus of the suit property, not being party in the appeal clearly has made the entire appeal incompetent to be proceeded with any further. The Court also notes that the ratio of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao (supra) and Budh Ram (supra) apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the contention of learned counsel for the respondents no. 9 and 19. 10. Accordingly, Interlocutory Applications No. 4138 of 2018 and 24 of 2021 stand allowed. As a consequence, the First Appeal itself stands dismissed as abated. 11. Having held that the First Appeal itself has abated, all pending Interlocutory Applications having become infructuous, stand disposed of.