https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189212 Under Order 22 CPC, substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased respondent is mandatory where the right to sue survives, and failure to substitute within limitation causes abatement. An order refusing to set aside abatement is not a decree, so a second appeal under Section 100 CPC does not lie; the correct remedy is the separately appealable appeal from order under Order 43 Rule 1(k). A defective or incompetent second appeal does not render the appeal from order infructuous, nor does it justify disturbing an order that found sufficient cause, set aside abatement, and allowed substitution. The appeal from order remained operative. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:53:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189212 Under Order 22 CPC, substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased respondent is mandatory where the right to sue survives, and failure to substitute within limitation causes abatement. An order refusing to set aside abatement is not a decree, so a second appeal under Section 100 CPC does not lie; the correct remedy is the separately appealable appeal from order under Order 43 Rule 1(k). A defective or incompetent second appeal does not render the appeal from order infructuous, nor does it justify disturbing an order that found sufficient cause, set aside abatement, and allowed substitution. The appeal from order remained operative. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189212