John Edge, Kt., C.J.
1. In this case one of the two plaintiffs-respondents died pending the appeal. Three years have not expired since the day of his death. The defendant-appellant applies to have his appeal heard in the absence of any representative of the deceased plaintiff-respondent. For the reasons stated by the majority of this Court in Muhammad Husain v. Khushalo, ante, p. 223, I am of opinion that we should not accede to this request until we have the proper parties on the record. We have held that Article 178 and not Article 17IB applies to the case of a deceased respondent, be he plaintiff or defendant in the suit. In my opinion the motion should be refused.
2. I am of opinion that the contention of Mr. Kashi Prasad, which has been referred to this Full Bench by the Divisional Bench for disposal, should be decided against him, and that he should not be allowed to proceed with the trial of this appeal, and to have it decreed as against the respondent who has died since the institution of the appeal, until the period of limitation provided for in Article 178 of the Limitation Law has expired and the legal representatives or heirs of such deceased respondent have failed to make such application to be brought on the record. That contention of the learned pleader for the appellant in the appeal must be taken to be disposed of, and the case will come on in due course.
2. I concur with the learned Chief Justice and my brother Straight.
3. I concur.
4. Feeling myself bound by the opinion of the majority, I must bow to the conclusion at which they have arrived. I concur in the order which they have made, see Act VII of 1888, Section 66 (4).