BAL KRISHAN Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant appeal, the appellants, had laid challenge to the judgment and decree, dtd. 31/12/2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 95/2015, whereby the appeal filed by defendants, was dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed.

(2.) The perusal of the record reveals that respondent No. 8 Geeta Devi has expired on 25/9/2017, whereas, the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 31/12/2022. However, the appeal has been dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court without taking note of her death, vide judgment and decree impugned before this Court in the present appeal. The impugned judgment therefore, admittedly is against the dead person, i.e., respondent No. 8. There is no quarrel so as to the fact that respondent No. 8 has expired well before the decision in the appeal by the learned first Appellate Court. No doubt, applications, i.e. CMPs(M) No. 955 & 956 of 2023, for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent No. 8 after condoning the delay, have been filed in the present appeal, however, the question of substitution of her legal heirs and the question as to whether the appeal on her death stands abated, for want of consequential steps, are the questions to be gone into and determined by learned first Appellate Court.

(3.) It is settled proposition of law that where a party dies in a pending suit/appeal and judgment/decree is passed in ignorance to such death, the question of substitution of his/her legal heirs and setting aside the abatement, if any, can only be considered by the Court, before whom the suit/appeal was pending at that time.