IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.299 of 1998 DURGA PRASAD Versus SMT.RADHIKA DEVI & ORS ----------- 17. 03.11.2010 It appears that in this case, an application has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 on 21.09.2010 alleging that the sole appellant died 10 years ago and prior to death, he had sold his entire property. Because of non- substitution for such a long period, the appeal has abated and is liable to be dismissed. In the said application, it is also mentioned that respondent nos. 11, 16 and 17 have also died 5-10 years ago but no substitution has been made by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 submitted that this appeal arises out of Partition Suit and therefore, for non-substitution of the legal representatives of the sole appellant as well as of the respondent stated above, the appeal has become now incompetent. Accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary appearing on behalf of the original appellant, since deceased submitted that in spite of repeated letters, he 2 has not got any instruction. He also submitted that he has no file with him as such is not in a position to say anything. In view of the submissions and the statement made in the Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No. 8386 of 2010, it has not been controverted by the appellant, this appeal has now abated. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as abated. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)