1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. : 156 of 2025 Decided on : 12.05.2026 _ Wattana (now deceased) through LRs ….Appellants. Versus Balwant Ram ....Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) CMP(M) No. 726 of 2026 and 727of 2026 By medium of CMP(M) No.727 of 2026, the applicants/appellants have sought condonation of delay in filing an application bearing CMP(M)No. 726 of 2026 under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 of C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Narinder Kumjar i.e respondent No. 5(b) and for setting-aside the abatement, if any, of appeal. As per the averments as made in the application, the said respondent has expired on 22.08.2025 and the same is 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 clear from the perusal of the death certificate appended with CMP(M) No. 726 of 2026 as Annexure A-1. 2 In view of the submissions as made in the application bearing CMP(M)No. 726 of 2026 which is duly supported by an affidavit, and taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, applications are allowed (subject to all exceptions) and delay in filing the CMP(M) No. 726 of 2026 for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No. 5(b) as mentioned in para 3 of the application is condoned and the LRs of respondent No. 5(b)are ordered to be brought on record and the abatement, if any, is ordered to be set-side. 3 Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes to file amended memo of parties within a period of two days from today. Applications stand disposed off. RSA No. 156 of 2025 The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge(II)Una, H.P., dated 15.10.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed and the respondents were held to be in possession over the suit property in Village Abada Barana, Tehsil & District Una, as mortgagee as well as in pursuance of an agreement dated 23.08.1986.Further 3 defendant No. 1 was restrained by passing a decree of permanent injunction. The appeal/ objection filed by the defendants was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration in the Court of learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Court No.1, Una on 03.01.1987. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 02.06.1998. 3. Feeling dissatisfied, Civil Appeal bearing No. 57 of 2019 was preferred by the plaintiffs and cross objection/Civil Appeal bearing No.18/1998 was preferred by the defendants. By passing a common judgment, the first appellate Court accepted the suit filed by the plaintiffs and cross objection/appeal as preferred by the defendants was ordered to be dismissed. The defendants have now preferred the present Regular Second Appeal before this Court against the said judgment and decree." 4. In para 2 of the grounds of appeal, it has been categorically stated that the impugned judgment has been passed against a dead person i.e Kishori Lal son of Wattana, who was respondent No.1(iv) before the First Appellate Court. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Gurnam Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives’ (2017), 13 SCC 414, 4 more particularly thereof in para No.21, has observed 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’.” 6. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a judgment passed in favour or against a dead person is a nullity. The respondent No.1(iv) has expired during the the pendency of appeal and prior to passing of the impugned judgment. The deceased defendant/respondent No.1(iv) died on 21.11.2016 whereas the judgment was passed on 15.10.2019. Therefore, the judgment has been passed against the dead person. 7. Consequently, this Court has no other option, but to set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2019 and remit the matter back to the Court of learned Additional District Judge(II), Una, H.P. for adjudication afresh. After setting the impugned judgment, the Civil Appeal bearing No. 57 of 2019 and 5 the cross objection/ Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1998 are restored to its original numbers with a direction to the 1st appellate Court to proceed afresh in the matter and to take the appeal and cross objection to its logical end . The plaintiffs/respondents undertake to file an appropriate application for the substitution of the legal heirs of deceased respondent, Kishori Lal before the First Appellate Court. 8 Similarly, the cross objector/defendant is also permitted to file appropriate application for doing the needful. The learned First Appellate Court shall decide both the applications together and decide the question of abatement first and thereafter decide the main case on merits. 9 The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 04.06.2026. 10 Needless to say that no fresh notices shall be issued by the First Appellate Court and the learned counsel for the parties undertake that the parties through their counsel shall remain present on the aforesaid date. 11. The appeal stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 12th May 2026 (veena)