2025:HHC:18935 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.6/2012 Date of Decision: 19th June, 2025. Bhushan Lal Saini .....Appellant. Versus State of HP & Others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Simran, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 9. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, in the case at hand, was plaintiff before the learned trial Court. 2. Appellant had preferred a suit for damages on account of defamation. The suit was dismissed, against the said dismissal of the suit, the present appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant is stated to have died 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the right to continue with the appeal does not survive post death of the appellant with his legal representatives. In this respect, reference can gainfully be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in 1986 (1) SCC 118, titled Melepurath Sankunni 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:18935 Ezhuthassan Vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. Where a suit for defamation is dismissed and the plaintiff has filed an appeal, what the appellant- plaintiff is seeking to enforce in the appeal is his right to sue for damages for defamation and as this right does not survive his death, his legal representative has no right to be brought on the record of the appeal in his place and stead if the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal. The position, however, is different where a suit for defamation has resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff because in such a case the cause of action has merged in the decree and the decretal debt forms part of his estate and the appeal from the decree by the defendant becomes a question of benefit or detriment to the estate of the plaintiff- respondent which his legal representatives is entitled to uphold and defend and is, therefore, entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased respondent- plaintiff. 8. 8. Section 306 further speaks only of executors and administrators but on principle the same position must necessarily prevail in the case of other legal representatives, for such legal representatives cannot in law be in better or worse position than executors and administrators and what applies to executors and administrators will apply to other legal representatives also. 9. The position, therefore, is that had the Appellant died during the pendency of his suit, the suit would have abated. Had he died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him in the District Court, the appeal would have equally abated because his suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court. Had he, however, died during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the 3 2025:HHC:18935 respondent in the High Court, the appeal would not have abated because he had succeeded in the first appeal and his suit had been decreed. As, however, the High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit, the present Appeal by Special Leave must abate because what the Appellant was seeking in this Appeal was to enforce his right to sue for damages for defamation. This right did not survive his death and accordingly the Appeal abated automatically on his death and his legal representatives acquired no right in law to be brought on the record in his place and stead.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, the right to sue does not survives in the legal heirs of deceased appellant, therefore, the present appeal stands abated, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th June, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)