2026:HHC:6383 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP (M) No. 1371/2022 in RSA No.52/2026 Decided on: 06.03.2026 Gian Chand & anr. …..Appellants/Applicants Versus Bisso (deceased) through his LRs ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants/Applicants: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: None for respondents No. 1(i) to 1(vi). Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2(i) to 2(v). Respondent No.3 ex parte. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) CMP (M) No. 1371/2022 For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, delay of 15 days in 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 filing the regular second appeal is condoned. Application is allowed and stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. RSA No.52/2026 The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 31.05.2022, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-I Dharamshala dated 30.12.2014, dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs, have been affirmed. 2 The present appeal came up for hearing on 21.10.2022, on which date notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents returnable within one week. Pursuant to that, the case was listed on different dates for taking steps for the service of the respondents. Thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed CMP (M) No. 2093/2025 under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.3, namely, Jagdish @ JC after seeking condonation of delay, for which separate application being CMP (M) No.2094/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. 3 3 In CMP (M) No. 2093/2025, it has been averred by the appellants/applicants that they came to know vide order dated 9.12.2022 passed by this Court that respondent No.3 has expired. It has been further averred that when the case was listed on 30.12.2022 the learned counsel for the appellants sought time to take steps for representation of the deceased respondent No.3. In para 4 of the aforesaid application, it has been submitted that the death certificate of the deceased respondent No.3 could not be obtained by the appellants despite making best efforts, however they came to know about the date of death of respondent No.3 on 18.11.2025, which happens to be 18.04.2013. The aforesaid application is duly supported by an affidavit. 4 The impugned judgment and decree as passed by the learned first appellate court is dated 31.05.2022, whereas as regards judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, it is dated 30.12.2014. Meaning thereby, respondent No.3 had expired during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial court i.e. on 18.04.2013, as has been averred by the appellants/applicants in CMP (M) No. 2093/2025. 5 Learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out and submitted that since the death of the said respondent had taken place when the lis was pending before the learned trial 4 court, as such, the decrees passed by both the learned courts below are nullity. 6 Undisputedly, the matter has been decided against a dead person and no efforts have been made to bring on record legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3. Decree passed by the Court for or against a dead person is a nullity. 7 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:- “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 8 In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option, but to set aside the judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below and to remand the matter back to the learned trail court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 9 The contesting parties are directed to ensure their presence through their respective counsel (s) before the learned trial court on 06.04.2026. 10 It is made clear that no fresh notices shall be issued by learned trial court for ensuring the presence of parties. Consequential steps on account of death of respondent/defendant No.3 shall be taken by the appellants/plaintiffs on or before 06.04.2026. The learned trial court is requested to decide the application and suit expeditiously as the lis is pending between the parties since the year 2005. 11 With these observations, appeal stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 12 Record be sent back immediately. 13 A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the learned trial court for record. (Romesh Verma) 6th March, 2026 Judge (pankaj)