JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The appellants are the defendants, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.1, Mandi, have filed the instant appeal praying therein for the dismissal of the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents with costs throughout. 2. Taking into consideration the order, I propose to pass, it is not necessary to deal in detail the facts. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration t the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land along with defendants and the entries in the revenue record to the contrary are wrong, illegal, incorrect, null and void and in operative qua the rights of the plaintiffs and in the alternative decree for joint possession was prayed for. 3. The defendants resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement wherein apart from raising preliminary objections; they have denied the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Learned trial court on 6.2.1997 framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are joint owners in joint possession alongwith the defendants, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the revenue entries contrary to this are wrong and illegal, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost under section 35-A CPC OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief. 5. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the suit was ordered to be dismissed. However, on an appeal being filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the findings rendered by the trial court were set aside. This constrained the defendants-appellants to file the instant appeal, which was initially admitted on 18.10.2005. However, since no specific substantial questions of law were framed, this Court on 14.7.2010 framed the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the appeal before the first Appellate Court stood abated on account of death of Smt. Hima appellant No.4 without brining on record her legal representatives? 2. However, since no specific substantial questions of law were framed, this Court on 14.7.2010 framed the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the appeal before the first Appellate Court stood abated on account of death of Smt. Hima appellant No.4 without brining on record her legal representatives? 2. Whether the first Appellate Court has committed error by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in view of the fact that when Shri Dharmu last male owner is proved to have died in the year 1921 and his wife Nalori in the year 1931 and their daughters succeeded to the estate of Dharmu. And whether the provisions of Hindu Women Property Act, 1937 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were wrongly applied? 3. Whether the first Appellate Court has mis-appreciated the evidence and pleadings and has misapplied the law thereby causing prejudice to the appellant? Substantial Question No.1: 6. Admittedly Hima Devi was plaintiff No.4 before the trial court and was arrayed as appellant No.4 before the appellate court. She died on 13.9.2004, whereas the judgment and decree was came to be passed by the appellate court much later on 1.9.2005. 7. It is well settled that where a party dies during the pendency of the suit or appeal and the judgment and decree is passed in ignorance of such fact, then such judgment and decree is a nullity. The question of substitution of legal heirs and setting aside the abatement, if any, can be considered by the court below where the suit or appeal was pending when death took place. This has been the consistent view of this court and reference in this regard can be conveniently made to the following judgments: 1. Sher Singh and others Vs Raghu Ram and others, 1981 Sim. LC. 25 2. Udai Ram vs. Dharam Chand, 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 219 3. Jagan Nath and others vs. Smt. Ishwari Devi,1998 (2) Shim. L.C. 273 4. Tulsi Ram and others vs. Smt. Krishni Devi and others (2000) (2) Shim.L.C. 172 5. Karam Chand and others vs. Bakshi Ram and others, 2002 (1) S.L.J. 764 6. Pushpa Devi vs. Purshotam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 910 7. G.S. Chahal and others vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 162 8. Seeta Ram and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others, 2014 (6) ILR 992 8. However, Sh. Karam Chand and others vs. Bakshi Ram and others, 2002 (1) S.L.J. 764 6. Pushpa Devi vs. Purshotam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 910 7. G.S. Chahal and others vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 162 8. Seeta Ram and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others, 2014 (6) ILR 992 8. However, Sh. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that in the memo of parties of the appeal, the legal representatives of Hima Devi have already been arrayed in their own capacity as respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and even the power of attorney on their behalf has been filed. Therefore, the legal representatives of deceased Hima Devi are deemed to be brought on record by the leave of this Court. 9. I am afraid that such contention of the respondents cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the same would be against the settled proposition of law to the effect that an appeal would abate automatically unless heirs and the regal representatives of a deceased party, plaintiff or defendant, are brought on record within the period specified in the Code of Civil Procedure and abatement of the appeal can only be set aside if an appropriate application is moved therefore. The further question whether a suit or an appeal has abated or not would depend upon the facts of each case. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chandrasekharan and others vs. S. Kanakarajan others, (2007) 5 SCC 669 , wherein it was held as under: “[19] Indisputably, an appeal would abate automatically unless the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased plaintiffs or defendants are brought on record within the period specified in the Code of Civil Procedure. Abatement of the appeal, however, can be set aside if an appropriate application is filed therefore. The question, however, as to whether a suit or an appeal has abated or not would depend upon the fact of each case. Had such a question been raised, the respondents could have shown that their cross-objection did not abate as the estate of the deceased cross objector was substantially represented.” 10. Sh. The question, however, as to whether a suit or an appeal has abated or not would depend upon the fact of each case. Had such a question been raised, the respondents could have shown that their cross-objection did not abate as the estate of the deceased cross objector was substantially represented.” 10. Sh. Sanjeev Kuthiala would then place reliance on number of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court to contend that the appeal has not completely abated for want of bringing on record the legal representatives. 11. As already observed such question is beyond the purview of this court and has essentially to be decided before the court where the party (Hima Devi) died. 12. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of appellants. 13. In view of the answer to substantial question of law No.1, no findings need to be rendered on the other substantial questions of law as the judgment and decree has to be set aside in view of the answer to substantial question of law No.1. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is merit in the appeal and accordingly the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge with the direction to the plaintiffs-respondents herein to take consequential steps on the death of deceased plaintiff No.4 Hima Devi and thereafter the first appellate court shall decide the questions of substitution of legal representatives as also the question of abatement of the appeal, if any, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to put in appearance before the learned District Judge on 1.12.2016. Record be sent back forthwith so as to reach the same before the District Judge well before the date fixed. Learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 31st March, 2017. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.