John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.
1. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was instituted by one Muhammad Naki. His suit was dismissed in the first Court, whereupon an appeal was filed by him, during the pendency of which he died leaving as his legal representatives, his widow, two sons and two daughters. The two sons applied to the Court to be brought upon the record as appellants, and they were so brought. Thereupon the defendants asked the Court to have the other representatives also brought upon the record. These representatives were served with notice of the application, but took no notice of it, and in view of their attitude the Court did not feel justified in adding them as appellants and declined to do so, directing that the hearing should proceed. It was obviously the duty of the two sons to apply to the Court; to have the other representatives brought on the record either as appellants or as respondents but they neglected to take any steps in this direction. The result is that in accordance with the ruling of this Court in the case of Ghamandi Lal v. Amir Begam (1894) I.L.R. 16 All. 211 the appeal abated. We had occasion to consider this ruling in the recent ease of Jugal Kishore v. The Collector of Bijnor Second Appeal No. 52 of 1905, and we approved of and followed it. It late now to ask us to pass an order upon. the application or a defendants to bring the other representatives on the record, which was rejected by the Court below. The result is that the appeal to the lower appellate Court abated, and the decree obtained from that Court must be set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance restored with costs in all Courts.