Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:10868 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. :
7 of 2026
Decided on : 8th April, 2026
Ram Rattan & Others
.....Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Tejsavi Sharma & H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge
(Oral) Appellants have preferred the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge(I), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No.15 of 2016 titled as ‘Ram Rattan & Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’. 2. During the pendency of appeal, applications, under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9 CPC, have been moved for bringing on
2026:HHC:10868 record the legal representatives of appellant No.14Durgi Devi and appellant No.15Ram Sukh. As per the learned senior counsel for the appellants, appellant No.14Durgi Devi and appellant No.15Ram Sukh have expired on 21.05.2021 and 19.01.2025, respectively. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, has pointed out that death of appellants No.14 and 15, had taken place, when the lis was pending, before the learned First Appellate Court. As such, decree passed by the Court for or against a dead person is nullity. 4. Undisputedly, the matter has been decided against dead persons, as, no efforts have been made to delete the names of appellant No.14Durgi Devi and appellant No.15Ram Sukh, or to bring their legal representatives on record, and the decree passed by the Court for or against a dead person is nullity. 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, 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, 2
2026:HHC:10868 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. 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, after deciding the question of abatement/bringing on record the legal representatives of the above two persons. Since, the lis is pending, between the parties, from the year 2007, as such, it is expected from the learned First Appellate Court to decide the matter expeditiously. 7. With these observations, the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2025, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, is set aside. 3
2026:HHC:10868
8. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear, before the learned First Appellate Court, on 6th May,
2026. 9. All pending miscellaneous application shall also stand disposed of. 9. Record be sent back, immediately. ( Virender Singh )
Judge April 08, 2026 (ps) 4