1 ( 2026:HHC:7140 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. : 85 of 2025 Cross Objection No.: 29 of 2025 Decided on : 10.03.2026 Dalip Singh ….Appellant. Versus Narpat (since deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents Maya Devi & Ors. ...Respondents __ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Sharma and Ms. Sana Rana, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1(iii) and 1(iv) Name of respondent No.1(i) stands deleted vide order dated 09.08.2017. Respondents No.1(ii) , 1(v), 1(viii) & 1(ix) proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed by Additional Registrar (Judicial) Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:7140 ) dated 09.01.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been ordered to be dismissed. Further the cross objections which were preferred by the cross-objectors/respondents were also ordered to be dismissed. 2. The appeal and cross-objection which were preferred before the learned First Appellate Court arose out of the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. dated 27.12.2017, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff Dalip Singh was partly decreed. It was ordered by the learned trial Court that plaintiff is held entitled to the alternative relief for recovery of earnest money of Rs.07,03,000/- to be paid by the defendants/respondents. However, the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract and permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction was ordered to be dismissed. 3. Feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of first Appellate Court, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing Regular Second Appeal and the respondents-defendants have filed the cross- Objections The appellant/ applicant has filed an 3 ( 2026:HHC:7140 ) application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C read with Section 151 of C.P.C for deleting the name of legal representatives of respondent 1(vii) Smt. Jarnail Kaur. The said averments have been reiterated by the Cross-Objectors in their application bearing CMP(M) No. 2307 of 2025 and it has been averred that respondent No.1(vii) Smt. Jarnail Kaur has expired on 06.08.2019 and the copy of Death Certificate has been appended with the application by the Cross-Objectors as Annexure A-1. The perusal of the same reveals that the said deceased had expired on 06.08.2019 at Village Ferozepur Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnagar, Punjab. 4. The record shows that against the judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal on 11.05.2018 and in the said appeal present respondents had preferred the Cross Objections . Vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2025, the appeal as preferred by the plaintiff and the Cross Objections as preferred by the defendants/respondents were ordered to be dismissed. The deceased respondent No.1(vii) Smt. Jarnail Kaur, who is stated to have expired on 06.08.2019 has died during the pendency of the appeal 4 ( 2026:HHC:7140 ) and the Cross-Objection before the learned First Appellate Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically and repeatedly held that judgment and decree passed in favour or against a dead person is nullity. 5. The said exposition of law has been laid down by 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:- 21. “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.” Therefore, this Court has no other option save and accept to quash and set-aside the judgment and decree as passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 09.01.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff 5 ( 2026:HHC:7140 ) and the Cross-Objections as preferred by the defendants were ordered to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, after setting aside the judgment as passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted back to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan by restoring it to its original number alongwith the Cross-Objections to be decided afresh. The parties undertake to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1(vii) Smt. Jarnail Kaur. The parties are directed to remain present before the First Appellate Court on 07.04.2026. 7. It is made clear that the First Appellate Court shall not issue fresh notices to the parties, as they are duly represented by their counsel. 8. Appeal as well as Cross-Objections stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 10.03.2026 (veena)