Judgment 1. The appellants have called into question the judgment and decree, dated 18.1.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court III, Dharwad in R.A.No.93/2007. 2. The full advertence to the facts of the case may not be necessary. Suffice to state that the respondent filed O.S.No.206/2005 against her brother Chandrashekharappa seeking the relief of partition agitating her half share in the suit schedule properties numbering 10 items. The defendant remained exparte. The suit was dismissed, as the suit schedule properties were not available for partition on account of the Land Tribunal passing the order that the defendant is holding the lands in excess of ceiling area as per the Land Reforms Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff (the respondent herein) filed R.A.No.93/2007 before the First Appellate Court (Fast Track Court III, Dharwad). The First Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and decreed the suit entitling the respondent to half share in the suit schedule properties excluding the excess land. It is this judgment of the First Appellate Court, which is called into question by the L.R.s of the defendant. 3. Sri Suresh P.Hudedagaddi, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged a solitary but formidable contention. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is a nullity, as it is passed against a dead person. He submits that the appellant died on 12.12.2010. He submits that without disclosing the factum of the death of the defendant, the arguments were advanced on 18.1.2011, on which date the suit was decreed. 4. Sri Shrikant T.Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that the arguments were advanced earlier on 7.12.2010 and 5.1.2011. He submits that, if Order XXII Rule 6 is read with Order XXII Rule 1 and 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it becomes clear that the hearing of the appeal is not barred even after the death of the party, provided no evidence is called for. In an appeal, normally no oral trial takes place and no fresh evidence is recorded. The concern of the Appellate Court is mainly confined to the examination of the correctness of the judgment of the lower Court by reference to the applicable law and the materials already gathered. In an appeal, normally no oral trial takes place and no fresh evidence is recorded. The concern of the Appellate Court is mainly confined to the examination of the correctness of the judgment of the lower Court by reference to the applicable law and the materials already gathered. The hearing of an appeal and rendering of judgment would not suffer in any way for the failure to bring the L.R.s of a deceased party on record. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of VANTAKU APPALANAIDU AND OTHERS v. PEDDINTI DEMUDAMMA AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1982 AP 281 ). 5. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the hearing of the appeal after the death of the appellant–defendant and without bringing his L.R.s on record renders the First Appellate Court’s judgment a nullity? 6. To answer this question, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Order XXII Rule 6 of C.P.C. The said provisions read as follows: “6. No abatement by reason of death after hearing.–Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place.” 7. As per these provisions, there is no abatement by reason of the death of either party after the conclusion of hearing and before the pronouncement of the judgment. In the instant case, the arguments were in progress but were not concluded when the appellant died. Therefore, the First Appellate Court’s judgment cannot be sustained. 8. In the case of GOLLA KRISHNA MURTHY v. GOLLA YELLAIAH (DIED) BY LRS. (2002 AIHC 110 AP), the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in the case of Vantaku Appalanaidu (supra) is not good law. The Division Bench has held that if an appeal is heard after the death of a party and delivers the judgment, such a judgment would be a nullity. The Division Bench has held that if an appeal is heard after the death of a party and delivers the judgment, such a judgment would be a nullity. Because, if a party dies before the matter is finally heard and argued before the Court, the advocate who appears for a dead party, is appearing, in fact, for nobody. 9. Thus answering the question in the affirmative, I set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court. All the contentions are kept open. 10. At this juncture, it is brought to my notice that the respondent – plaintiff is also dead and that her L.R.s are also brought on record in these appeal proceedings. The submissions of the learned advocates, Sri Suresh P.Hudedagaddi for the appellants and Sri Shrikant T.Patil for the respondents that they would make the necessary applications for bringing the L.R.s on record, for setting aside the abatement and for the condonation of delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement are placed on record. 11. The First Appellate Court is directed to hear the L.R.s of the appellant and of the respondent and then pass the judgment. Further, it is directed to dispose of the remanded matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today’s order. No order as to costs. 12. Office is directed to return the L.C.Rs to the First Appellate Court forthwith.