filed on 01.03.2020 i.e. for about 10 years, no attempts have been made by the applicant to bring the legal representatives of those respondents on record and to get the appeal restored as against respondent No.4. It is to be noted that respondent Nos.5, 7, 9 and 10 were the original defendant Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9 in whose favour, the decree was passed that the sell transaction executed by defendant No.4 in favour of present applicant and defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not binding on them. Therefore, the decree that was passed was joint and several. Without bringing the legal representatives of these respondents, the second appeal cannot proceed and if proceeded, possibility of contrary judgment cannot be ruled out and, therefore, in view of the decisions in State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram, [AIR 1962 SC 89] and Bibijan and others Vs. Murlidhar and others, [(1995) 1 SCC 187], the appeal abates as a whole. Under such circumstance, though for some practical reasons, as the intimation under Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was given by the Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 only on 28.02.2020 and immediately within 3 days the application was filed for bringing the legal heirs on record, but there was already delay of 2551 and 3765 days, the application can be considered as within limitation. But, for the reasons stated above, the appeal in its entirety stands abated in view of the decree that was passed by the learned Trial Judge and, therefore,
