JUDGMENT 1. - Today, the case comes up on an application under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 C.P.C. laid on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No. 2 Suresh Hapawat. As per the averments contained in the application, the second respondent expired on 6.12.2010 during pendency of the civil suit before the learned trial Court. However, the fact of demise of the second respondent was not brought to the notice of the learned Court below and the learned Court finally adjudicated the suit and decreed the suit for specific performance of contract vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2012. 2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that no decree can be passed against a dead person and as such the impugned judgment and decree is a nullity in the eye of law. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. bearing No. 30235 of 2012 moved on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No. 2 is allowed and they are substituted as legal representatives in place of second respondent and are taken on record. 3. In view of consent of rival parties and peculiar facts of the case that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed against a dead person, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained. 4. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below for its decision afresh considering the fact that the second respondent is represented.by his legal representatives. 5. As the atter is very old and at the threshold the suit was laid before the trial Court ' the year 2007, it is expected from the learned trial Court to decide the suit esh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.Application Allowed and Appeal Dismissed. *******