The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of substitution of legal representatives of deceased parties in civil proceedings and the consequences of non-substitution.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Predecessor-In-Interest of appellants No.1 to 4 and proforma respondents No.6 to 10 had filed Civil Suit No.54 of 2007 and for their death during pendency of the suit, appellants No.1 to 4 and respondents No.6 to 10 were brought on record as plaintiffs. Suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No.54 of 2007, titled as Parwati (deceased through L.Rs.) vs. Nikka Ram & others.

2. Dismissal of the suit was assailed by the appellants No.1 to 4 by filing Civil Appeal No.187 of 2015, titled as Chughi Devi & others vs. Nikka Ram & others. Whereas, other plaintiffs, who are respondents No.6 to 10, did not opt to assail the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and thus in first appeal also, were arrayed as proforma respondents No.6 to 10 alongwith other defendants and proforma defendants. This appeal was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2020.

3. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by appellants No. 1 to 4 assailing aforesaid judgment and decree dated 10.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.187 of 2015, arraying parties in the same fashion as were before learned Additional District Judge Sundernagar.

4. On issuance of notice to respondents all other respondents except respondent No.6 were served, and it was reported that respondent No.6 had expired during pendency of the first appeal which is also evident from the death certificate of respondents No.6, placed on record by the appellants alongwith CMP(M) No.348 of 2021 which indicates that he had expired on 28.07.2018 i.e. after filing of the first appeal on 31.07.2015, but before dismissal thereof vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2020. Respondent No.6 was one of the plaintiffs, however, he did not assail the impugned judgment and decree whereby suit was dismissed. But before First Appellate Court, he had attended the proceedings by ensuring his representation through his learned counsel and was duly represented.

5. This Court, vide judgment dated 24.05.2021, passed in RSA No.261 of 2019, titled as Jaishi Ram vs. Manohar Lal and others after taking into consideration relevant provisions of law as well as judgments passed by this High Court previously and also pronouncements of the Supreme Court in cases Gurnam Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2017) 13 SCC 414; Sher Singh and others vs. Raghu Ram and others, (1981) ShimLC 25; Ram Rakha and others vs. Brahma Nand and others, (1994) Supp ShimLC 29; Jagdish vs. Ram Karan and others, (2002) 1 CurLJ 232, referred in Dewana and another vs. Gian Chand Malhotra and others,2011 LatestHLJ 1420 and also judgments in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2015) 2 ShimLC 674; Jagan Nath and others vs. Ishwari Devi, (1988) 2 ShimLC 273; Karam Chand and others vs. Bakshi Ram and others, (2002) 1 ShimLC 9; and Gurnam Singh (dead) by legal representatives and others vs. Gurbachan Kaur (dead), (2017) 13 SCC 414, referred in Tara Wati and others vs. Suman & others, (2018) LatestHLJ 1046, has held as under:-

"9. It is well settled that a decree in favour of or against a dead person is nullity. For non substitution of legal representatives of deceased defendant, out of several defendants, may cause abatement of appeal against the deceased defendant or as a whole, depending upon the effect of non substitution of legal representatives of deceased defendant on the relief claimed. Appellant/plaintiff has set up a case of ignorance of death of defendants.

10. In view of judgments relied upon by the appellant, referred supra, an application for setting aside abatement and substitution of legal representatives of deceased defendants should have been made and dealt with by the Court in which abatement occurred as a