JUDGMENT :

DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.

This second appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2025 passed by District Judge, Pawai, District Panna in RCA no. 10/2023 affirming the judgment and decree dtd.13.03.2023 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Pawai, District Panna in Civil Suit No.03-A/2018, whereby Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit, which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court, by dismissing the civil appeal as not maintainable for want of necessary parties.

2. Instant second appeal is listed for hearing on admission but since the contesting respondents/plaintiffs are duly represented by the counsel Shri Shankar Prasad Singh and Shri Saurabh Singh Sengar, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, second appeal is heard finally on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether in view of amendment made on 26.10.2023 in the impugned judgment and decree dtd.13.03.2023, consequent upon allowing the application under Section 151, 152 of CPC dtd. 26.09.2023, First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the appellants/defendants’ application for substitution of legal representatives on the ground of delay, consequently civil appeal also as not maintainable for want of necessary parties?

3. Facts in short, relevant for deciding this second appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs namely, i). Churaman; ii). Pimmi Bai; and iii). Sita Bai; instituted a suit for declaration of title, for declaring the partition effected on 20.09.1985 as null and void, for declaring the sale deed dtd. 28.08.2020 (Ex.P/26) as null and void and for partition and separate possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff 2-Pimmi Bai had died on 20.09.2020 and for substitution of her LR, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed on 14.10.2020, which was allowed vide order dtd.07.07.2021, however for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, LR of plaintiff 2-Pimmi Bai namely, Nindram was not substituted by incorporating his name in the plaint, however, later on the suit was decreed on 13.03.2023.

4. Against the judgment and decree dtd.13.03.2023, the appellants/defendants 1-2 preferred regular civil appeal on 06.04.2023, before First Appellate Court taking the aforesaid objection, as one of the grounds in the civil appeal, to the effect that since the decree has been passed against a dead person, therefore, the same is nullity.

5. Later on, the plaintiffs moved an application on 26.09.2023 for amendment of the judgment and decree (technically under Section 151, 152 of CPC) before Trial Court with the prayer for making necessary correction/amendment/substitution in the plaint as well as in the impugned judgment and decree dtd.13.03.2023 in the light of interim order already passed by Trial Court on 07.07.2021, which was allowed by Trial Court vide order dtd.26.10.2023 permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as well as cause title of the judgment and decree and pursuant thereto, amendment was also incorporated timely.

6. In the light of aforesaid subsequent events/amendments made in the record of Trial Court, the defendants/appellants moved an application on 18.07.2025 under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC r/w Order 22 Rule 3 CPC before First Appellate Court for substitution of legal representative of deceased plaintiff 2-Pimmi Bai in the pending civil appeal, which was opposed by the respondents on the ground of delay etc.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the First Appellate Court proceeded to decide the application but dismissed the same on the ground of delay and consequently dismissed the civil appeal also as not maintainable vide impugned judgment and decree dtd.13.10.2025 for want of impleadment of LR of deceased plaintiff 2-Pimmi Bai. Apparently, nothing has been considered on merits.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that in the aforesaid circumstances and further in v