29. Another principle in this behalf which has found recognition of the Courts is that if the legal representatives of the deceased party are before the Court in the same action even if in another capacity, failure to bring them on record in a specific legal position would not result in abatement of the action. In Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram [ (1971) 1 SCC 265 : (1971) 3 SCR 301] this Court was called upon to consider whether where a legal representative of a deceased party is on record in another capacity, failure to implead him as legal representative of the deceased party would result in abatement of the action? In that case Mahabir Prasad, his wife Saroj Devi and his mother Gunwanti Devi filed a suit against Jage Ram and two others for recovering rent then due in the aggregate amount of Rs 61,750. The suit ended in a decree. The execution of the decree was resisted by the defendants on the plea inter alia that the decree was inexecutable because of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. This contention found favour with the executing court and the application for execution was dismissed. Mahabir Prasad, one of the decree-holders alone appealed against that order and impleaded Gunwanti Devi and Saroj Devi as party respondents along with the original judgment-debtors. Saroj Devi died in November 1962 and Mahabir Prasad applied that the name of Saroj Devi be struck off from the array of respondents. The High Court made an order granting the application “subject to all just exceptions”. Subsequently the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that because the heirs and legal representatives of Saroj Devi were not brought on record within the period of limitation, the appeal abated in its entirety. This Court, while setting aside the order made by the High Court holding that the appeal abated, observed as under:
