1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 2294 of 2025 in RSA No. 75 of 2025 Decided on : 02.04.2026 _ Onkar Singh & Anr. ….Appellants. Versus Mehar Singh (deceased) through his Lrs & Ors. ....Respondents __________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present appellants/applicants have filed the present application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.8 Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Mohinder Singh. 2. It is contended in the application that the said respondent has expired on 12.06.2023 in Rajinder Parshad Medical College & Hospital at Tanda . 3. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Nurpur, District Kangra on 16.01.2025. It emanates from the record that the said respondent No.8, who was defendant No.4(c) before the learned trial Court, has died during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Gurnam Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives’ (2017), 13 SCC 414, wherein it has been observed, in para No.21, as under:- “It is a fundamental principle of law laid down by this Court in Kiran Singh’s case (supra) that a decree passed by the Court, if it is a nullity, its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree holder. The reason is that the defect of this nature affects the very authority of the Court in passing such decree and goes to the root of the case. This principle, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to this case because it is a settled principle of law that the decree passed by a Court for or against a dead person is a ‘nullity’.” 5. It has been held that a judgment passed in favour or against a dead person is a nullity. In the present case also, the impugned judgment was passed after Respondent No. 8 had expired during the pendency of the appeal. 3 6. Consequently, this Court has no other option but to set aside the judgment and decree as passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 7. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2025, as passed by the learned First Appellate Court, appeal is remitted back to the First Appellate Court with a direction to decide the question of abatement first and thereafter to decide the appeal afresh on merits. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 12.05.2026. 9. The application as well as appeal stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 2nd April 2026 (veena)