https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468884 The appeal was treated as within limitation because the certified-copy filing dates showed timely presentation, so omission of limitation dates in the paper book was not a fatal breach of the undertaking. The objection based on abatement also failed, as the deceased respondent's estate was already represented by an heir on record and the remaining heirs were subsequently substituted. The proposed settlement could not be recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because it was not signed or supported by all necessary parties, authority under power of attorney was unproved, and affected parties were omitted from the compromise. The refusal to record the settlement was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2026 12:12:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468884 The appeal was treated as within limitation because the certified-copy filing dates showed timely presentation, so omission of limitation dates in the paper book was not a fatal breach of the undertaking. The objection based on abatement also failed, as the deceased respondent's estate was already represented by an heir on record and the remaining heirs were subsequently substituted. The proposed settlement could not be recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because it was not signed or supported by all necessary parties, authority under power of attorney was unproved, and affected parties were omitted from the compromise. The refusal to record the settlement was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jun 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468884