"18. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents, drawing my attention to Order 22, Rule 10-A CPC, supported by a decision of the Apex Court in P.JESAYA (DEAD) BY LRS. vs. SUB-COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER [(2004) 13 SCC 431], would submit that the pleader for the parties not having discharged his duty to inform the Court and other parties, of the death, and continued to plead matter, L.Rs. of respondent were bound and in this view, it should be held, appeal had not abated. In the case involved in the above decision, a similar situation like the one in the case on hand had arisen. The Apex Court, considering the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC, as well as the duty of the Pleader, came to the conclusion, that the decree passed cannot be treated as nullity, even referring the decision relied on by the counsel for the appellant in Ambabai case. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in P.Jesaya case, it is to be held, that the decree passed in A.S.No.59 of 1993 is binding upon the L.Rs. of the first plaintiff also and the decree cannot be treated as a nullity. Because of this reason also, as indicated above, in the grounds of appeal, when appeal is preferred by only the second plaintiff, it is specifically stated, cause of action survives and this being the admitted position, even by the appellant, the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion, is erroneous, liable to be rejected. Thus holding, the decree in A.S.No.59 of 1993 is valid, now it is to be seen as per the Substantial Question of Law framed, whether that could be sustained or not, on merits."
