(1.) PRESENT petition is preferred assailing the order dated 25.03.2011, passed by the Appellate Authority / Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Haridwar at Roorkee in Appeal No. 752 of 2009 whereby LRs of respondent No. 6 therein were directed to be substituted as well as against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Revisional Authority/ Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haridwar whereby Revision preferred against the order dated 25.03.2011 was dismissed. Learned Consolidation Officer, Roorkee was pleased to decide the objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act; feeling aggrieved, respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have filed Statutory Appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Act before the Appellate Authority / Settlement Officer, Consolidation wherein Pawan Singh S/o Pitamber Singh was arrayed as respondent No. 6. Undisputedly, Pawan Singh S/o Pitamber Singh (respondent No.6 in the appeal) has expired on 06.02.2009 much before the filing of the appeal before the Appellate Authority; application seeking substitution of the LRs of Pawan Singh S/o Pitamber Singh respondent No.6 therein was moved which was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.03.2011 and Revision arising therefrom was dismissed by the Revisional Authority, vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved, present petition has been preferred.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 10 and have carefully perused the record.
(3.) IT is the settled position of law that no suit or appeal can be preferred against the dead person and if appeal is filed and entertained against one of the dead respondents, appellant can move application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of the LRs. of the already deceased respondent. However, application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. seeking substitution of the L.Rs. of the already deceased respondent is not maintainable.