A judgment against a deceased person is a nullity; the obligation to inform the court of a party's death rests with the counsel under CPC Order 22 Rule 10A.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Suit No.4 of 2008 titled Darshan Singh v. Sadh Ram may kindly be recalled/

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

reviewed in the interest of justice and after allowing substitution of legal heirs of the deceased defendant after condoning the delay in bringing them on record and setting aside abatement, the suit may kindly be decreed against them.”

2. Facts, in brief, necessary for the adjudication of the present petition, as borne out from the record, are as under:-

2.1. Plaintiff Darshan Singh, has filed the suit for specific performance against defendant Sadh Ram (since deceased) before this Court. The said suit was decreed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.1.2024.

2.2. As per the application, after completion of the pleadings, issues were framed by this Court and the parties were directed to adduce evidence. After completion of the evidence, the matter was finally heard and vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2024, the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has been decreed by granting the following relief:-

“88. In view of the findings on all the issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. The defendant is directed to perform, his part of the agreement Ex.PW-1/A, by executing and registering the sale deed, at the expenses of the plaintiff, qua the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, within a period of three months from today, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.77,00,000/- (seventy seven lacs only).”

2.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, within a period of three months, then on 23.04f.2024, the plaintiff deputed his associate Bala Ram to meet the defendant and fix a date for execution/registration of sale deed, in terms of judgment and decree passed by this Court. When said Bala Ram visited the residence of the defendant, he was informed by the son of the defendant that the defendant had expired.

2.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner had consulted his lawyer, who advised him to obtain death certificate and legal heirs certificate of the deceased defendant. Those documents were prepared on 29.04.2024. Thereafter, the latest Jamabandi was obtained on 01.05.2024.

2.5. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the documents, it has been transpired that defendant Sadh Ram expired on 20.08.2021, leaving behind his son Ram Dayal and daughter Dyalo, who had been impleaded as respondents No.1(a) and 1(b), in the application. As per the revenue record, mutation of inheritance on the death of defendant Sadh Ram was also entered and sanctioned in favour of respondent No.1(a) only.

2.6. Petitioner further assertedf that he was not aware about the factum of death of defendant Sadh Ram nor the said factum of death wtas brought on record by the counsel representing defendant Sadh Ram.

2.7. Since, the judgment and decree has been passed against a dead person, as such, petitioner, as per his stand, found no other way, except for review/recall of the juhdgment and decree by allowing the application for sgubstitution of legal heirs of defendant Sadh Ram, after icondoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, if any.

2.8. Asserting the non-compliance of Order 22 Rule 10A CPC, it is the case of the petitioner that counsel representing defendant Sadh Ram never moved the application for bringing this fact on record.

2.9. Lastly, it is the case of the petitioner that he was having n