JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THIS appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether learned Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit against dead person without taking their legal representatives on record ?" ( 2. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment' dated 24/03/2005 passed by ADJ, Manawar, Dhar whereby judgment dated 14/10/2004 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Manawar in civil suit No. 12-A/2002 whereby suit filed by the respondent No. 1 was decreed was maintained, present appeal has been filed. Undisputedly during pendency of the suit Kalu S/o Jharia, Salam S/o Dapra and Mulabai who were defendants No.4,7 and 15 were died. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submit that no action was taken by the respondent No. 1 for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on record. It in the facts and circumstances of the case no judgment could have been passed either in favour or against the dead person. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Kishun @ Ram Kishun (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Bihari (Dead) by L.Rs. 2005 (4) MPLJ 1 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that decree passed in favour of a party, who was dead or against a party, who was dead, is a nullity as in the absence of the legal heirs being brought on record, the appeal self abates. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Courts below committed error in passing the judgment in favour of the respondent No.1. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned Courts below be set-aside. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No.l submits that respondent No.l was the plaintiff in the original suit and there were 15 defendants in the suit. It is submitted that Salam was defendant No. 7 whose L.Rs. were brought on record. So far as Mulabai is concerned, learned counsel submits that she was defendant No. 15 in the original suit and was not contesting defendant. It is submitted that in case where the defendant is not contesting then it cannot be said that decree is nullity. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Kanhaiyalal Vs. So far as Mulabai is concerned, learned counsel submits that she was defendant No. 15 in the original suit and was not contesting defendant. It is submitted that in case where the defendant is not contesting then it cannot be said that decree is nullity. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Kanhaiyalal Vs. Rameshwar AIR 1983 SC 503 wherein in a case of death of one of the respondents judgment-debtors whose legal representatives were not brought on record in time Hon'ble Apex Court held that it does not result in abatement of appeal as the judgment-debtor died was proforma respondent against whom no relief was claimed and in absence of whom appeal can proceed. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Babu Sukhram Singh Vs. Ram Dular Singh AIR 1973 SC 204 wherein in a case of joint claim against defendants and there was failure to implead legal representatives of deceased defendant in appeal Hon'ble Apex Court has held that appeal abates against all, as a whole. LEARNED counsel submits that in the present case claim was not against those respondents, therefore, appeal does not abate. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel for the respondent No'.l submits that appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. From perusal of record, it is evident that Mulabai who was defendant No.15 was not contesting the suit as suit proceeded ex parte against her. Similar was the position of Salam who was defendant No.7 though his L.Rs. i.e. his wife and children has purchased the part of suit property, therefore, they were taken on record as defendants No. 17 to 20. So far as Kalu is concerned who was defendant No.4 was contesting defendant who also filed counter claim. Undisputedly no action was taken for bringing the L.Rs. on record of deceased Kalu. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, there was no justification on the part of learned Courts below in passing the decree in favour of respondent No. 1 and against Kalu who was dead. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants and the judgment and decree passed by leaned Courts below stands set-aside. Suit stands dismissed as abated. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants and the judgment and decree passed by leaned Courts below stands set-aside. Suit stands dismissed as abated. ( 5. ) WITH the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.