JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - In a suit under section 229-B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, one Jai Ram Giri was arrayed as defendant no. 12, though he was dead at the time of the suit. It was afterwards found that Jai Ram Giri had died, but on the back of the summons the date of his death had not been given. Written statements of some of the defendants were filed, and no objection was taken to the effect that the suit had been filed against a dead person, viz : Jai Ram Giri. It appears that the plaintiff himself was ignorant of the fact that Jai Ram Giri had died and that no service on him had been made. It is also a fault of the court that it failed to notice the fact that one of the defendants was dead and that no substitution application had been filed for making his heirs parties in the case. On 20.8.1979, Shri Rudradhar Pandey gave an application on behalf of the defendants that Jai Ram Giri had died before the institution of the suit and hence the suit was liable to be abated. At this stage, it should be kept in mind that on 26.7.1979, Shri Rudradhar Pandey, Advocate, filed written statement on behalf of some of the defendants, but in that written statement no such plea was taken. 2. On 21.5.1980, the learned trial court passed an order that no suit could be instituted against a dead person and hence he dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Before the order of dismissal was passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff Chhatar Giri, had filed an application that due to, mistakes the name of Jai Ram Giri was typed in the plaint; that his heirs, Moti Giri, Sita Ram and Vishwanath were already arrayed as defendants nos. 10, 13 and 11 respectively ; and hence he prayed for the deletion of the name of Jai Ram Giri from the array of the parties. 3. 10, 13 and 11 respectively ; and hence he prayed for the deletion of the name of Jai Ram Giri from the array of the parties. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner, Shri Giridhar Gopal, was of the view that the name of Jai Ram Giri was arrived as a defendant inadvertently by reason of the fact that his name still found place in the Khatauni, and that as his heirs were already on record, the question of substitution did not arise and the matter remained one including simple mistake by arraying a dead person as a party to the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner has, therefore, recommended that the order of the trial court be set aside and the name of Jai Ram Giri, defendant nos. 12, be deleted from the array of the parties. 4. It is now admitted, and it was never in dispute at any time, that Jai Ram Giri, defendant no. 12 died before the institution of the suit. There is also no dispute but the fact that heirs of the deceased, Jai Ram Giri, are already on the record. It in also a fact that in spite of the death of Jai Ram Giri, his name continued to be recorded in village papers regarding title over the land in dispute. It is also a fact that though the suit was filed on 29.8.1978, it was not brought to the notice of the court till 20.8.1979 that Jai Ram was dead before the institution of the suit. In fact, when the summons of Jai Ram Giri was returned with the endorsement that service could not be made upon him because man is dead, neither the plaintiff nor any of the defendants, nor the court took into consideration this fact and all were under the impression that nothing was required to be done, when a report was before the court that one of the defendants had died, In the ordinary course of nature, the suit could not have proceeded further without first insisting that the heirs, if any, or Jai Ram Giri be brought on the record. 5. There is no dispute about the principles of law that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has argued that the suit itself, as it had been filed against a dead person; viz. 5. There is no dispute about the principles of law that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has argued that the suit itself, as it had been filed against a dead person; viz. Jai Ram Giri, was not maintainable and had been rightly dismissed by the trial court, He had further argued that the order of the learned Additional Commissioner regarding deletion of the name of Jai Ram Giri is erroneous. He has cited 1962 A.I.R. (Supreme Court) 199, in support of his contention. In that case, objection had been filed regarding territorial jurisdiction. While deciding about the strength of such objection the Supreme Court had held that the objection as to the local jurisdiction of the court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case. While discussing about this objection to the territorial jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made some observations regarding lack of inherent jurisdiction. It would be better to quote the wordings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at this stage, which are as follows :- "The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seizing of the case because the subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it." This observation was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of illustration on a point, which it discussed in context of another situation. The pros and cons on the matter were not discussed and no finding was given on that because this point was not involved in the case before the Supreme Court. Therefore, this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not help the O.Ps, in the context in which it has arisen in this case. 6. The next ruling relied upon by the learned courts for the O.Ps. is A.I.R. 1977 (Orissa) Page 137. Therefore, this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not help the O.Ps, in the context in which it has arisen in this case. 6. The next ruling relied upon by the learned courts for the O.Ps. is A.I.R. 1977 (Orissa) Page 137. In that case, a suit had been filed against a sole defendant, who had died prior to the institution of the suit, and in that context the learned Orissa High Court had held that the suit itself was a nullity, and no question of substitution of legal representatives of the deceased arose. That ruling is also not applicable to the facts of this case because here the suit was notified against a sole defendant but against several defendants and also because the deceased's legal representatives were already on the record, and because the fact that it was only by mistake that the name of defendant, Jai Ram Giri, was arrayed as a defendant. 7. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has cited A.I.R. 1978 Madras, page 294. The ruling is of Mr. Justice Ismail. In the case before him, a suit had been filed against 5 defendants and 4th defendant was dead on the date when the suit was instituted. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for impleading the legal representatives of the said 4th defendant. That application was dismissed by the trial court. It was held by the learned Judge that a suit against a dead person is admittedly a nullity and, therefore as far as the 4th defendant in that suit was concerned, it was as if no suit against that defendant had been filed. The learned Judge further held that the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. could not be invoked in such a case. It was held by the Madras High Court in that case that provisions of Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. also did not arise. This ruling is also not applicable because the facts of this case are a bit different. The difference lies in the fact that the legal representatives of the defendant, who had been before the institution of the suit and had been arrayed as a defendant, were already on the record and the question of substitution or of impleading new parties did not at all arise. The difference lies in the fact that the legal representatives of the defendant, who had been before the institution of the suit and had been arrayed as a defendant, were already on the record and the question of substitution or of impleading new parties did not at all arise. It was purely a case of simple mistake, The deceased, Jai Ram Giri, was perhaps arrayed as a party because his name found place in the Khatauni and because the factum of his death was not known to the plaintiff. Such a mistake can always be corrected and the only order required in this case was to delete the name of the dead person and no further question of substitution of legal representatives or of addition of his legal representatives as new parties to the suit arose. 8. The order of the trial court is illegal and it has committed illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the name of Jai Ram Giri defendant was mentioned in the plaint only by mistake and that it ought to have been deleted as unnecessary, specially when the question of substitution did not arise by reason of the fact that legal representatives of the deceased Jai Ram Giri were already on the record. 9. Therefore, I allow the revision and set aside the order of the trial court, and agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner the name of Jai Ram Giri be deleted from the array of the defendants.