JAI CHAND Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this appeal was taken up for consideration, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant informs the Court that one of the respondents in appeal, i.e. respondent No. 3, namely, Onkar Singh, in fact died during the pendency of the Civil Suit, in which, Onkar Singh was the plaintiff and no steps were taken to bring on record his legal representatives on record. He further submits that the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Trial Court in the face of record being defective and thereafter, in appeal also, this defect was not cured and judgment and decree stood passed by the learned Appellate Court, though in favour of a dead person, as the factum of death of said party was neither brought to the notice of learned Trial Court nor the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, he submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are a nullity and are liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court which may proceed with the same, in accordance with law.

(2.) Learned Counsel representing the respondents submits that it is a matter of record that Onkar Singh had died during the pendency of the civil suit, however, he submits that the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below not being against the interest of the deceased person were sustainable in law.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in my considered view, the contention of learned Counsel for the represented respondents has no legal force in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurnam Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others versus Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives, 2017 13 SCC 414, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has unambiguously held that judgment/order passed in favour of against a dead person is a nullity. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-