only after death of Balaram and if Gobinda did not want to pursue the appeal, the LRs of Balaram will also lose his right to pursue the appeal. When the sons of Balaram, after his death, say that they are interested for pursuing the appeal on behalf of their father, the right to sue continues with them and they cannot be denied for the mere reason that Gobinda did not take steps to bring them on record. Of course, the question of limitation to admit the petition under Order 41, Rule 19 is altogether different from the question regarding right of the LRs to pursue the appeal. However, the District Judge has not opined anything regarding limitation but has rejected the petition under Order 41, Rule 19 only on the ground that the same at the instance of the LRs of Balaram is not maintainable. This approach of the District Judge is illegal and unjustified, and accordingly set aside. Since in the meantime around 24 years have been passed, the limitation in filing the petition under Order 41, Rule 19 by Prafulla and Manoj is also condoned in the interest of justice. Further there being no dispute raised by the present Respondents with regard to their eligibility as the legal representatives of Balaram, being his sons, their prayer for substitution in place of Balaram is also allowed.
