1 10 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.248/2007. Chandra Shekhar Vs. Chandra Kanta & Ors. Date of Order :: 15th December 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.K.Maheshwari for Mr.Sunil Mehta, for the appellant. Mr. R.R. Nagori, for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: Learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays for some time to move appropriate application for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3. As per the report received on the notices sent in relation to the said respondent No.3 Smt. Gulab wife of Vallabh Das Malani, she had expired as back as on 27.01.2008. The office made the noting about the said report on 20.05.2008 and when the matter was taken up by the Court on 14.07.2008, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, two week's time was granted to do the needful. The office has reported that no steps have yet been taken by the learned counsel in relation to the respondent No.3 and the requisites in relation to the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 have not been filed. The prayer for adjournment as made on behalf of the appellant does not appear justified particularly for the reason 2 that the report of demise of the said respondent No.3 was specifically recorded in this case file on 20.05.2008 and then on 14.07.2008, the matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. For the appellant having not taken any steps in relation to the respondent No.3, this appeal has already abated qua the said respondent No.3 and there appears no justification to adjourn the matter in that regard. Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.09.2004 makes out that the suit filed by the said deceased respondent No.3 along with the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration and other reliefs was decreed by the learned Trial Court while holding, inter alia, the sale deed as executed in favour of the defendant No.1-appellant on 13.08.1998 to be void and ineffective. Further, an injunction was granted with the observations that the property in question was to be treated as being in joint possession of the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were held to be the share holders in the property in question. Looking to the subject matter of dispute and the nature of the suit as filed and decree as granted by the learned Trial Court, with abatement of appeal against the plaintiff- respondent No.3, nothing further would survive for consideration in this appeal because the decree that has 3 become final in relation to the plaintiff-respondent No.3 has been a joint one in favour of the three plaintiffs and remains inseparable. The abatement of this appeal in relation to respondent No.3, as a natural consequence, results in its abatement as a whole. In the aforesaid view of the matter, even when leaving the other aspect aside that appellant has failed to take steps for service on the respondents Nos. 4 to 8, this appeal abates as a whole; and be consigned to record as such. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/