(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ defendants against the judgment dtd. 10/12/2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2021, whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 25/7/2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.176 of 2010, was set-aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh trial.
(2.) During pendency of the present appeal, the appellants have filed two applications, being CMP(M)s No.1458 & 1459 of 2025, for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondents No.6 and 16, after condoning the delay. Perusal of the a oresaid applications reveals that respondent No.6-Bakshi, had died on 22/6/2024 and respondent No.16-Rattan had died n 2/12/2023, during the pendency of the appeal befo e he learned First Appellate Court. However, the learned First Appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment n 10/12/2024. Therefore, the impugned judgment admittedly is against the dead persons, i.e., respondents No.6 and 16. There is no quarrel so as to the fact that respondents No.6 and 16 ave expired well before the decision in the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court. No doubt, applications, i.e. CMPs(M) No.1458 & 1459 of 2025, for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondents No.6 & 16, after condoning the delay, have been filed in the present appeal, however, the question of substitution of their legal heirs and the question as to whether the appeal on their death stands abated, for want of consequential steps, are the questions to be gone into and determined by the learned First Appellate Court below
(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.