JUDGMENT 1. - Plaintiff Amar Chand and Sagar Mal filed a suit for. specific performance of the contract against the Gram Panchayat, Sanchore (defendant No. 1), Moti (defendant No. 2) and the Collector, Jalore (defendant No. 3) and It was prayed that the defendant No. 1 may be directed to execute a sale-deed of the plot in question in favour of the plaintiffs and deliver its possession to them. It was, also, prayed that the defendant No. 2, who is in possession of the plot in question, has no title or Interest in the suit plot as the defendant No. 1 has already sold the plot in question in a public auction to the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to got the possession of the land In question and the same may be delivered to them after taking over the possession thereof from the defendant No. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned Munsif, Sanchore, by its decree and judgement dated November 29, 1971, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the decree and judgement dated November 29, 1971, passed by the learned Munslf and Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jalore, which was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Balotra (Camp Jalore), who, by his decree and judgement sdated November 24, 1972, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and maintained the decree and judgement passed by the learned Munsif, Sanchore, Aggrieved with the decree and judgement passed by the learned Civil Judge, Balotra (camp Jalore), the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 2 Moti died on December 19, 1977, but no application for taking the legal representatives of deceased Moti on record was moved either by the appellants or by the respondents. The appeal was, therefore, heard by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. The Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Shri S.K. Mal Lodha - as He then was), by his decree and judgement dated February 20, 1986, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in the following terms: "The plaintiffs shall deposit the balance of Rs. 985/- in the Court of Munsif, Sanchore, within one month from today. 985/- in the Court of Munsif, Sanchore, within one month from today. On such deposit being made, the Gram Panchayat, Sanchore, shall execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the land in question. The expenses relating to sale shall be born by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall, also, be entitled to the possession of the land in question which is in occupation of defendant No. 2. A decree for possession in respect of the land in question is, also, passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Gram Panchayat, Sanchore, as well as defendant No. 2 Moti." After the disposal of the appeal, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was moved by Mafat Lal - the legal representative of deceased Moti on April 8, 1980 to the effect that Moti Lal died on December 19, 1977, and the appeal, therefore, stands abated against the deceased defendant Moti as no application for impleading his legal representatives as party was made. During the pendency of this application, Mafat Lal, also, died on June 9, 1992, and, therefore, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code was moved on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased Mafat Lal for substituting their names in place of Mafat Lal. The legal representatives of deceased Moti Lal, namely, Smt. Naju and Ors., also, filed an application under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for reviewing the judgment dated February 20, 1986, passed by Hon'ble the Single Judge of this Court in the appeal. Both the applications filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Moti Lal and Mafat Lal were contested by the plaintiff-appellants. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of deceased Moti Lal that Moti Lal died on December 19, 1977, and no application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Moti on record has been filed and, therefore, the appeal stands abated and the decree and judgement passed by the learned Single Judge is mullity in the eye of law as it has been passed against a dead person. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, on the other hand, has supported the decree and judgement passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and submitted that deceased Moti Lal was represented by his counsel and the fact of the death of Moti Lal was not brought to the notice of the Court by him and the remedy (sic)ble with the legal representatives of the deceased defendant Moti is now, to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition and neither any application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code nor the review petition is maintainable and this Court becomes functuous officio after the decree and judgement have been passed and now there is no ground for reviewing the order. Alternatively, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that no decree can be passed against deceased Moti Lal and the appeal stands abated against him, then the remaining part of the decree relating, to the specific performance passed against the respondent No. 1 shall be maintained as it can be separated and that relief has not been prayed against the defendant Moti and was not connected with him. It is, also, submitted that the right to move an application for setting aside the abatement of the plaintiffs may be preserved. 3. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The death of respondent No. 2 Moti took place on December 19, 1977, which is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, no application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Moti was made by the appellants during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal was decided by this Court on February 20, 1986, in the terms indicated above. Any decree or order passed against a dead person is nullity as no relief can be granted against a dead person. The decree and judgement passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge against deceased Moti was, therefore, nullity and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Though in the normal course, if a party is aggrieved by the decree and judgement of the Single Judge sitting in the second appeal, the proper remedy for the party is to file an appeal against that decree and judgement and a remedy by way of an application for review is misconceived. 5. Though in the normal course, if a party is aggrieved by the decree and judgement of the Single Judge sitting in the second appeal, the proper remedy for the party is to file an appeal against that decree and judgement and a remedy by way of an application for review is misconceived. But in a case where the decree has been passed against a dead person, which is a nullity in the eye of law then the Court should not shirk in its responsibility in correcting the mistake which has occurred as the fact of death of deceased Moti was not brought to the knowledge of the Court and the appeal by that time stood abated. If that fact would have been brought to the knowledge of the Court that the legal representatives of the deceased have not been brought on record then the appeal, so far as the respondent Moti is concerned, stood abated. The Courts are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to penalise a party for its inaction or negligence. It is the duty of the Courts to do substantial justice between the parties and to set-aside the decree which is a mullity. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow to stand a decree which is a mullity. It is the primary duty of the Courts to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the parties. I, therefore, think it proper to exercise the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code to set-aside the decree and judgement dated February 20, 1986, passed by this Court as it has been passed against a dead person, viz., Moti, and as such it is a nullity as the appeal stood abated. 6. The question, now, remains for consideration is whether the whole decree is to be set-aside or only the part of the decree regarding the delivery of the possession by the respondent No. 2 to the plaintiffs can be set-aside and the remaining part of the decree can be maintained. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance against the defendant No. 1 and 3 and for the delivery of the possession of the plot in question against the defendant No. 2, viz., deceased Moti. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance against the defendant No. 1 and 3 and for the delivery of the possession of the plot in question against the defendant No. 2, viz., deceased Moti. Unless the decree for delivery of the possession passed against the deceased defendant Moti is set-aside, the specific performance of the contract for the execution of the sale-deed and the delivery of the possession to them cannot be granted. The decree of specific performance will be a futile decree unless the possession of the plot in question is handed-over to the plaintiffs and, therefore, the decree for the specific performance rests dependent on the decree of possession over the plot in question and both are inter-connected and unless the possession is taken from the legal representatives of deceased defendant Moti, the possession of the plot in question cannot be handed over to the plaintiffs and the decree of the specific performance cannot be executed. The decree of specific performance in absence of the decree of possession will be ineffective and cannot be successfully executed. The result of the abatement of the appeal against the respondent Moti is, therefore, that the possession of the plot in question cannot be taken from the legal representatives of deceased Moti and the decree of specific performance cannot be effectively executed. The necessary corollary of the same is that the whole appeal, filed by the plaintiff-appellants, stands abated against all the defendant" respondents. 7. In the result, I allow the application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants, dismissed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgement dated February 20, 1988, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court as it already stood abated quo all the respondent-defendants.Petition allowed. *******