IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 78 of 2025 Decided on: 29.9.2026 Anwar Hussain ...Appellant Versus Sher Mohd. & ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anirdudh R.H. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 4, 5(i) to 5(v). None for respondents No. 6(i) to 6(iv). Respondent No. 6(v) is stated to have expired. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) CMP (M) Nos. 1033 and 1034 of 2026 in RSA No. 78 of 2025 The appellant has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No. 11 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. of 2015, titled as, ‘Anwar Hussain & anr. versus Sher Mohd. & others, whereby, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, preferred by the appellants, against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2014, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 83/1 of 2009, titled as, ‘Anwar Hussain & anr. vs. Sher Mohd. & others’. 2. By way of CMP(M) Nos. 1033 and 1034 of 2026, indulgence of this Court has been sought to bring on record the LRs of respondent No. 6(v), who, as per the application, has expired on 18.11.2023, after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, if any. 3. It is not in dispute that the death of respondent No. 6(v) Sarifan Begum had taken place on 18.11.2023, when the lis was pending before the learned First Appellate Court. As such, the matter has been decided against a dead person, as, no efforts have been made to bring on record the LRs of respondent No. 6(v). 4. Decree passed by the Court, for or against a dead person, is nullity. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Gurnam Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Others versus 2 Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives’ (2017) 13 SCC 414, has 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. In view of the above, this Court has left with no option, but to set aside the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, and to remand the matter back to the learned First Appellate Court, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. 6. Since, the lis is pending between the parties from the year 2009, as such, it is expected from learned First Appellate Court to decide the question of abatement and to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably, on or before 31.12.2026. 7. With these observations, CMP(M) Nos. 1033 and 1034 of 2026 are disposed of. Consequently, the present 3 appeal is also disposed of by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2025, passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 8. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 13.10.2026 at 10:00 a.m. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Record be sent back immediately. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 29, 2026 (kalpana) 4