2026:HHC:5634 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.     :       156 of 2024 Decided on : 5th March, 2026 Lot Ram & Others .....Appellants Versus Dumnu & Others .....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr.   Bimal   Gupta,   Senior Advocate with Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 15. Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate for   respondents   No.16(i)   to 16(iii), 16(v), 16(vi) and 19 to 21. None for respondents No.16(iv), 17 and 18. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Appellants   have   preferred   the   Regular   Second Appeal   against   the   judgment   and   decree   dated   04.03.2024, passed   by   the   Court   of   learned   Additional   District   Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 2026:HHC:5634 the ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in  Civil Appeal No.21 of 2016 titled as ‘Lot Ram & Others Vs. Dumnu & Others’. 2. During the pendency of appeal, applications, under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151 CPC, have been moved for deletion of the names of appellant No.20(v)(e)­Mangat Ram and   respondent   No.16(iv)­Chattri.     As   per   applications, appellant   No.20(v)(e)­Mangat   Ram  and  respondent   No.16(iv) Chattri,   have   expired   on   30.06.2023   and   23.06.2021, respectively. 3. Learned   counsel,   appearing   for   the  respondents have  pointed   out   that   death   of   appellant   No.20(v)(e)   and respondent   No.16(iv)   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.20(v)(e)­Mangat Ram  and respondent No.16(iv)­Chattri, or to bring their LRs on record, hence, 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 2 2026:HHC:5634 (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’.” 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   LRs   of   the   above   two persons.   Since, the  lis  is pending, between the parties, from the year 2010, 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 04.03.2024, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, is set aside. 3 2026:HHC:5634 8. Parties,   through   their   counsel,   are   directed   to appear, before the learned First Appellate Court, on 9th April, 2026. 9. Record be sent back, immediately. ( Virender Singh ) Judge March 05, 2026 (ps) 4